mm' 


m 


mw 


/ 


CORNELL   STUDIES    IN    PHILOSOPHY 

No.   2 


BRAHMAN: 


A  Study 


IN   THE 


History  of  Indian  Philosophy 


BY 


HERVEY   DeWITT   GRISWOLD,  M.A. 

FeU<nv  of  the  Panjab   University  and  Professor  of  Philosophy  in  the 
Forman  Christian  College,  Lahore. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

1900 


vy 


PRESS   OP 

Thb  New  Era  Printing  Company 
Lancaster,  Pa. 


PREFACE. 

TWO  countries  share  the  honor  of  being  the  birthplaces  of  the 
chief  historic  religions  of  the  world,  Palestine-Arabia  and 
India.  The  one  is  the  ancestral  home  of  Judaism,  Christianity,  and 
Islam  ;  the  other,  of  Brahmanism  and  Buddhism.  Genetically, 
Judaism  is  the  mother  of  both  Christianity  and  Mohammedan- 
ism, as  Brahmanism  is  the  mother  of  Buddhism.  Buddhism, 
Christianity,  and  Mohammedanism  belong  to  the  class  of  insti- 
tuted religions,  in  that  they  go  back  into  great  creative  person- 
alities, after  which  they  are  respectively  named  ;  whereas  Juda- 
ism and  Brahmanism,  the  mother  religions  of  the  world,  are 
properly  characterized  as  spontaneous,  since  they  have  their 
origin  in  the  tribe  rather  than  in  the  individual.  The  one  allied 
group  of  religions,  namely  Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Islam, 
grew  up  and  made  its  earliest  conquests  in  the  region  having  the 
Mediterranean  for  its  center.  The  other  group,  represented  by 
Brahmanism  and  Buddhism,  appeared  and  spread  in  India-China 
and  the  neighboring  regions,  the  second  ancient  center  of  the 
world's  civilization.  The  sacred  language  of  Judaism  is  Hebrew, 
and  the  sacred  language  of  Brahmanism,  Sanskrit.  Hence  both 
linguistically  and  racially  the  western  group  springs  from  a  Se- 
mitic source,  while  the  eastern  springs  from  an  Aryan  source. 
Thus  the  history  of  religion  has  to  do  primarily  with  two  geo- 
graphical centers,  Palestine  and  India  ;  with  two  races,  Semitic 
and  Ar>'an  ;  and  with  two  languages,  Hebrew  and  Sanskrit. 

In  this  monograph  I  purpose  to  make  a  special  study  of  the 
doctrine  of  Brahman,  the  central  conception  of  Indian  philosophy 
and  religion.  Accordingly,  it  will  be  a  study  both  in  the  history 
of  philosophy  and  in  the  history  of  religion.  The  method  will 
be  genetic  and  comparative.  It  will  be  genetic,  for  the  concep- 
tion of  Brahman  will  be  traced  through  the  Vedas,  the  Upani- 
shads,  the  Vedanta-Sutras,  and  the  Commentary  of  (^ankaracarya. 
It  will  be  comparative,  for  the  religious  aspects  of  the  doctrine  of 

iii 


iv  PREFA  CE. 

Brahman  will  constantly  be  illustrated  by  the  parallel  develop- 
ment in  Judaism  and  Christianity  ;  while  the  philosophical  aspects 
of  the  doctrine  will,  at  least  in  their  main  features,  be  set  side  by 
side  with  the  corresponding  ideas  in  the  ancient  and  modern  phi- 
losophy of  the  West. 

The  importance  of  the  conception  of  Brahman  in  the  history 
of  Indian  thought  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  word 
'  Brahman  '  has  supplied  the  name  to  (i)  a  class  of  priests,  the 
Brahmans  ;  (2)  a  department  of  ancient  Sanskrit  literature,  the 
Bfdhmanas  ;  (3)  the  Ultimate  Reality  of  the  Vedanta,  Brahma  ; 
(4)  the  first  person  of  the  later  Hindu  Trinity,  Brahma  ;  (5)  In- 
dian religion  before  the  Buddhist  disruption,  Brahmanism,  and 
.(6)  the  modern  theistic  movement  known  as  the  Brahma  Samaj. 

It  will,  of  course,  be  possible  to  deal  only  with  the  main  out- 
lines of  the  doctrine  of  Brahman.  For,  as  Professor  Flint  truly 
says,  to  explain  in  de^tail  the  how  and  why  of  the  development  of 
the  doctrine  of  Brahman  would  be  to  write  the  longest  chapter  in 
the  history  of  Hindu  civilization.^ 

As  regards  literature,  my  largest  indebtedness  is  to  the  works  of 
Professor  Deussen,  especially  to  his  Allgemeine  Geschichte  dcr 
Philosophie,  erster  Band,  which  deals  with  the  philosophy  of  the 
pre-Upanishad  period,  and  to  his  Sechzig  Upanishads  dcs  Veda. 
Prof.  Max  Mueller's  Six  Systems  of  Indian  Philosophy,  and  Profes- 
sor Thibaut's  careful  translation  of  the  Vedanta-Sijtras  (SBE.  vols. 
XXXIV  and  XXXVIII)  have  also  been  of  very  great  service. 
Col.  Jacob's  Co7icordance  to  the  Upanishads  is,  of  course,  indis- 
pensable to  every  worker  in  the  field  of  the  Upanishads. 

The  method  of  transliteration  used  is  essentially  the  same  as 
that  found  in  Professor  Whitney's  Sanskrit  Grammar.  I  must 
plead  guilty,  however,  of  not  always  following  it  consistently. 
Words  such  as  upanishad,  rishi,  piirnsha,  prakriti,  etc.,  have  be- 
come anglicized,  and  so  I  have  not  always  written  them  as  upani- 
sad,  rsi,  purusa  and  prakrti.    I  have  written  s  in  the  place  of  visarga. 

The  development  of  the  doctrine  of  Brahman  (neuter  as  op- 
posed to  Brahman)  is  indicated  by  three  well  marked  stages  :  {a) 
the  initial  or  germinal  stage   represented  by  the   Rig-Veda,  the 

^  Anti- Theistic  Theories,  p.  344. 


PREFA  CE.  V 

Atharva-Veda  and  the  early  prose,  excluding  the  Upanishads  ; 
{b)  the  stage  of  creative  thought  represented  by  the  Upanishads  ; 
and  {c)  the  stage  of  system  building  and  exposition  represented 
by  the  Vedanta-Siatras,  aS  expounded  by  ^ankaracarya.  To 
these  a  fourth  stage  might  be  added,  namely,  that  of  Indian 
scholasticism  and  theological  subtlety,  as  illustrated  by  the  later 
doctrinal  treatises,  e.  g.,  the  Vcddnta  Sara  and  the  Veddnta 
Paribhdsd.  These  stages,  I  say,  are  well  marked,  not  indeed  by 
external  chronological  data,  which  in  India  are  almost  entirely 
lacking,  but  by  what  has  been  happily  called  internal  chronology, 
the  chronology  of  language  and  thought.  Thus  even  the  lan- 
guage reveals  three  clearly  marked  stages  of  development,  Vedic, 
Brahmanic,  and  Classic.  The  absolute  dates  of  the  Rig-  Veda,  of 
the  Brdlunanas,  and  of  the  beginnings  of  Classic  Sanskrit  in  the 
Sutra  period,  are  very  uncertain,  and  yet  their  respective  places 
in  the  development  of  Sanskrit  literature  are  sufficiently  clear 
and  definite.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  three  stages  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  doctrine  of  Brahman,  namely,  initial,  creative, 
and  systematic,  correspond  in  general  to  the  three  periods  in  the 
history  of  the  language,  Vedic,  Brahmanic,  and  Classic. 

It  is  only  when  we  come  to  the  Upanishads  that  Brahman 
uniformly  means  the  Ultimate  Reality.  Doubtless  centuries  of 
language  and  thought  development  elapsed  before  the  word 
brahman  and  the  idea  which  was  finally  associated  with  this 
word  came  to  be  integrated.  Two  streams,  then,  are  to  be 
traced  down  from  their  sources  until  they  meet  and  flow  to- 
gether ;  one  represented  by  the  word  '  brahman  '  with  its  devel- 
opment and  flow  of  meaning,  the  other  consisting  of  the  idea  of 
the  Sole  Reality  as  it  variously  manifests  itself  in  the  early  litera- 
ture. Or,  to  state  it  differently,  we  have  first  to  trace  the  prepar- 
ation of  the  word  for  the  idea,  and  of  the  idea  for  the  word.  This 
will  involve,  on  the  one  hand,  a  study  of  the  derivation  and  use  of 
the  word  '  brahman, '  and,  on  the  other,  some  account  of  the  course 
of  Vedic  thought  as  it  gradually  moved  towards  a  unitary  con- 
ception of  things. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAITER   I. 

Ill-   History  of  the  Word  Bkahmax Pp.  1-20 

A.  Usage  of   Brahman. 

B.  Derivation  of  Brahman. 

C.  Connection  of  the  various  meanings  of  Braliman. 


CHAPTER  H. 

TuK  Developmkm  ok  thk  Doctrine  of  U.nity  in  the  Pre-Upanishad 
Literature Pp.  21-42 

A.  The  Growth  of  the  Monistic  Conception  in  the  period  of  the  Rig- Veda 
and  in  the  region  of  the  Panjab. 

B.  The  growth  of  the  Monistic  Conception  in  the  period  of  the  Yajur- 
Veda  and  in  the  region  of  Madhyadega. 


CHAPTER  HI. 

The  Doctrine  of  Brahman  in  the  Upanishads Pp.  43-70 

A.   Remarks  on  the  Sources. 


B.  Doctrine.  (       I-  Religious. 

C.  Consequences.  J       ^I-  Ethical. 
HI.  Eschatological. 
IV.  Philosophical. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

liii:  Doctrine  of  Brahman  in  the  Vedanta-Sutr.'VS  as  Expounded  hy 
(^"ankaracarya Pp.  71-^9 

A.  The  Theology  of  (^ankaracarya. 

B.  ^ankaracarya  and  Ramilnujacarya. 

C.  The  Vedanta- Sutras. 

vii 


LIST   OF   ABBREVIATIONS. 


Ait.  Ar Aitareya  Aranyaka. 

Ait.  Br Aitareya  Brahmana. 

Altind.  Gram...Altindische  Grammatik — Wackernagel,  1896. 

Apocal.  loh Apocalypse  of  John. 

Av A  vesta. 

AV Athan'a-Veda. 

Brh  Up Brhadaranyaka  Upanishad. 

Buddha Buddha:     His  Life,    His  Doctrine,    His  Order.     Oldenberg  (Eng. 

Trans,  by  Hoey,  Lond.,  1882). 

Comp.  Gram.... Comparative  Grammar  of  the  Indo-Germanic  Languages — Brugmann. 
( Eng.  Trans. ) . 

(^"at.  Br (^atapatha  Brahmana. 

(^vet.  Up (^vetagvatara  Upanishad. 

Chand.  Up Chandogya  Upanishad. 

Essays Essays  on  the  Religion  and  Philosophy  of  the  Hindus — H.  T.  Colc- 

brooke  (Leipzig,  1858). 

Evang.  loh Gospel  of  John. 

(leschichte Allgemeine  Geschichte  der  Philosophie. 

IE I  ndo- European. 

Kaush.  Up Kaushitaki  Upanishad. 

Kultur Indiens  Literatur  and  Kultur — Schroeder. 

Mac Maccabees. 

Mait.  Up Maitrayana  Upanishad. 

Manuel Manuel  de  la  Langue  de  I'Avesta — De  Harlez  (Paris  1882). 

N.  T New  Testament. 

OST Original  Sanskrit  Texts. 

O.  T Old  Testament. 

Ps Psalm. 

KV Rig-Veda. 

Roots .'...The  Roots,  Verb-forms  and  primary  derivatives  of  the  Sanskrit  Lan- 
guage— Whitney. 

SBE Sacred  Books  of  the  East. 

Six  Systems.... The  Six  Systems  of  Indian  Philosophy — Max  Muller. 

Taitt.  Up Taittiriya  Upanishad. 

Taitt.  Samh... Taittiriya  Samhita. 

Upanishads Sechzig  Upanishads  des  Veda. 

Vdj.  Sainh Vajasaneyi  Samhita. 

Veda Die  Religion  des  Veda— Oldenberg. 

Vedanta Das  System  des  Vedanta — Deussen. 

LUMG Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenliindischen  Gesellschaft. 

viii 


CHAPTER   I. 

The  History  of  the  Word  Brahman. 

The  word  'brahman  '  is  the  greatest  word  in  the  whole  history 
of  Indian  Philosophy.  On  it  hangs  largely  the  development  of 
Indian  thought.  The  meanings  assigned  to  it  are  numerous  and 
bewildering.  It  has  been  explained  and  translated  by  such 
various  terms  as  worship,  devotion,  fervor,  prayer,  hymn,  charm, 
incantation,  sanctity,  holiness,  priesthood,  spiritual  exaltation, 
sacred  writ,  Veda,  Vedic  formula,  priestly  order,  holy  work, 
priestly  dignity,  inspiration,  force,  spiritual  power,  ultimate 
reality,  absolute.  Thus  it  seems  to  mean  almost  anything.  On 
the  principle  that  accuracy  of  thought  depends  upon  the  accu- 
rate understanding  and  use  of  the  words  which  are  the  instru- 
ments of  thought,  in  other  words  that  sound  thinking  presup- 
poses sound  philology,  we  are  justified  in  taking  some  trouble 
to  determine  the  history  of  the  word  '  brdhnian' 

A.      Usage  of  Brahman. 

We  shall  consider  the  actual  usage  of  the  word  before  its  ety- 
mology, in  order,  if  possible,  to  be  delivered  from  the  vice  of  a 
one-sided  etymologizing.  First,  then,  the  word  '  brahman '  in 
the  Rig-Veda.  According  to  Grassmann's  Index  Lexicon  it  oc- 
curs in  the  RV.  about  240  times.  A  careful  study  of  these  pas- 
sages yields  the  following  results:  (i)  The  word  'brahman' 
frequently  stands  side  by  side  in  the  same  pdda  or  foot  with  one 
or  more  names  for  hymn,  c.  g.,  stoma,  uktlia,  dJii,  etc.,  presum- 
ably as  a  general  synonym.  E.  g.,  II,  39,  8  {brdhma  stomam),  i.  e. 
These  means  of  strength  for  you,  O  heavenly  horsemen, 
Brahman  (and)  praise-song  made  the  Gritsamadas, 
VI,   23,  I  {stoma  brahman  nktha),  i.  e. 

The  pressed  out  soma  thou  dost  love,  O  Indra, 
Brahman  (and)  song  of  praise  (and)  hymn  intoned. 


2  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

VI,   38,  3  {brdhma  ca  giras)  : 

Brdluiian  and  psalms  to  Indra  have  been  offered. 

VI,   38,  4  {brdJinia  gira  iiktlid  ca  viamna). 
As  sacrifice  and  soma  strengthen  Indra, 
So  also  brahman,  psalms  and  hymns  and  wisdom. 
Compare  also    I,   80,  16  {brdhmdni   nktha),  VI,  47,  14  {giro 

brahmdni),  VI,  69,  4  {brahmdni  .   .  .  girah),  VI,  69,  7  {brahmdni 

.  .   .  liavani),  etc, 

(2)  The  word  '  brahman  '  also  not  infrequently  stands  over 
against  some  word  for  hymn  in  a  different  pada  of  the  same 
verse,  doubtless  in  synonymons  parallelism  after  the  manner  of 
Hebrew  and  Anglo-Saxon  poetry.  E.  g.,  VI,  38,  3-4  (dhiyd 
.  .   ,  arkdis brdhma  .   .   .  giras) : 

With  a  high  song  of  praise  the  ancient  Indra 
Who  ages  not,  with  holy  hymns  I  welcome  ; 
Brdliman  and  psalms  to  Indra  have  been  offered. 
Oh  may  the  glorious  song  of  praise  refresh  him. 

VI,  69,  4  ijiavand  niatindm  parallel  with  brahmdni  giras), 
Be  pleased  with  every  cry  of  sacred  worship. 
Hearken  to  my  brahmdni  and  my  praise-songs.^ 

VII,  61,6  {inanmani  navdni  parallel  with  brahma  imdni), 
May  these  new  songs  be  unto  you  for  praise  songs, 
May  these  brahmdni  by  me  offered  please  you. 

Compare  also  VII,  61,2  {manmdni  parallel  with  brahmdni), 
VII,  22,  3  {vdcam  imdm  parallel  with  imd  brahma),  VII,  72,  3 
{stomdsas  parallel  with   brahmdni). 

(3)  The  word  '  brdliman '  frequently  stands  in  the  last  verse  of 
a  hymn  in  such  a  way  as  clearly  to  refer  to  the  preceding  verses, 
i.  e.,  to  the  whole  hymn.  E.  ^.,  I,  61,  16,  I,  62,  13,  I,  80,  16, 
I,  117,25,1,  152,  7,  IV,  6,  II,  IV,  16,  2i,V,  29,  15,  V,  75,  19, 
VII,  22,  9,  VII,  28,  5,  X,  54,  6,  X,  80,  7,  etc.  Note  that  of  the 
group  IV,  16-17,  19-24,  each  hymn  ends  in  a  kind  of  refrain 
which   contains   the  words   *  brdhma  navy  am,'  '  a  new  brdhman.' 

(4)  A  limiting  pronoun  is  sometimes  added  to  '  brdhman,' 
whether  it  stands  in  the  last  verse  or  not,  in  order  apparently  to 

iCf.  Ps.  CXI,  I.      "  Hear  vay  prayer,  O  Lord, 

And  let  my  cry  come  unto  Thee. ' ' 


THE  HISTORY  OF   THE    WORD   BRAHMAN.  3 

make  the  reference  to  the  hymn  more  expHcit.  R  £■.,!,  31,  18 
•Through  this  brdlunan,  Agni,  be  strengthened';  I,  152,  7  '  our 
brahman  ';  I,  165,  14,  V,  73,  10,  VII,  22,  3,  VII,  61,  6,  VII,  70,  6 
'these  brahiiidni';  II,  18,  7  'my  brahman';  II,  34,  6  'our 
brahmdni';  II,  39,8  'these  brdliman  (and)  stoma';  VI,  69,  4 
'  my  braJimdni  (and)  songs  ';  VI,  69,  7  '  my  brahmdni  (and)  cry.' 
Compare  imdm  vdcam  '  this  word  '  I,  40,  6,  I,  129,  i,  I,  130,  6, 
IV,  57.  5,  V,  54,  I,  VII,  22,  3,  IX,  97,  13. 

(5)  The  poets  are  said  to  h^LVO.  fashioned  {taks  I,  62,  13,  V, 
73,  10,  X,  80,  7)  and  generated  {Jan  II,  23,  2,  VII,  22,  9,  VII, 
31,  11)  the  brdhmau,  just  as  they  are  described  as  fashioning  or 
generating  a'  dhl  or  stoma  or  nktlia  or  tv?^;  (I,  109,  i,  V,  2,  1 1, 
VII,  15,  4,  VII,  26,  I,  X,  23,  6,  X,  39,  14,  I,  130,  6).  Ex- 
amples :  I,  62,  13  '  Gotama  has  fashioned  a  new  brdhmanJ  Cf. 
I,  109,  I  'I  have  fashioned  a  did  (hymn  of  meditation)  ;  VII. 
31,  II  '  The  poets  generated  a  brdhinan.'  Cf.  VII,  i  5,  4  '  A  new 
stoma  (song  of  praise)  have  I  generated.' 

(6)  The  word  '  brdhjnan '  is  joined  with  the  verb  gdyata  '  sing  ' 
in  I,  37,  4  and   VIII,  32,  27  'Sing   a   god-given  brahman.'      In 

VI,  69,  4  and  7  the  gods  are  entreated  to  hear  the  brahmdni. 

(7)  The  epithet  '  new '  is  often  applied  to  brdhman  just  as  in 

VII,  15,  4,  VIII,  23,  14  to  stoma,  in  VII,  61,  6  to  manman,dir\6. 
in  II,  24,  I  to  gir.  Thus  I,  62,  13,  IV.  16,  21,  V,  29,  15,  VI, 
17,  13,  VI,  50,  6,  VII,  61,  6,  X,  89,  3.  With  the  '  brdhma 
navy  am '  of  these  and  other  passages  compare  the  *  new  song  '  of 
Pss.  XL,  3,  XCVI,  I,  XCVIII,  I,  etc. 

(8)  The  adjective  abraJiman  (without  a  brdlunan^  occurs  three 
times:  IV,  16,  9  abrahmd  dasyns,  'the  dasyn  without  a  brdh- 
man '  ;  VII,  26,  i  abrahmdnas  sntdsas,  '  Libations  without  a 
brdhman  do  not  exhilarate  Indra '  ;  X,  105,  8  'With  a  hymn 
{rca)  may  we  overcome  the  hymnless  {anrcaJi).  A  sacrifice 
without  a  brdhman  {abrahmd^  does  not  please  thee  well.'  Com- 
pare abraJiman  IV,  16,  9  with  anrc  X,  105,  8. 

(9)  The  idea  of  the  inspiration  of  the  hymn-writers,  as  Deussen 
observes,^  is  well  developed  in  the  Rig-Veda.  Thus,  I,  37,  4 
'Sing  a  god-given  {devattam)  brdhman';    I,    105,    15   '  Varuna 

1  Allgemeine  Geschichte  der  Philosophie,  S.  242  ff.  4^ 


4  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

causes  brahmani  .  .  .  He  reveals  through  our  heart  {lirda)  the 
sacred  hymn  {inati) '  ;  II,  9,  4  '  Thou  art  (O  Agni)  the  deviser 
{iiianotar^  of  the  splendid  hymn  [imcas) ' ;  III,  34,  5  '  (Indra) 
showed  these  hymns  {dhiyas)  to  the  singer';  IV,  li,  3  'From 
thee,  Agni,  come  the  gifts  of  sacred  song  ;  from  thee  hymns 
{inanlsds)  and  holy  texts  {iiktha) '  ;  V,  42,  4  '  Enrich  us,  Indra, 
with  such  -Si  brdliman  as  is  god-granted  (^e-z/^/wV^w) '  ;  VI,  i,  i 
*  Thou,  Agni,  wast  the  first  deviser  of  this  sacred  meditation 
(din)'  ;  VII,  97,  3  '(Indra)  who  is  the  king  of  the  god-made 
{dcvakrtasyd)  brdliuian '  ;  VIII,  42,  3  '  O  Varuna,  sharpen  this 
hymn  (d/it)'  ;  IX,  95,  2  'The  god  (Soma)  reveals  the  hidden 
names  (attributes)  of  the  gods '  ;  X,  98,  7  '  Brihaspati  brought 
him  the  word  (vac).'  Note  also  that  in  II,  23,  i  Brahmanaspati 
is  called  '  the  great  king  of  the  braJundni '  and  in  v.  2  '  the 
generator  of  bralundni,'  while  in  X,  61,  7  it  is  written:  'The 
gods  generated  brdlunan.'  Observe  the  entire  parallelism  as 
regards  inspiration  which  exists  between  brdliinan  and  its  (pre- 
sumable) synonyms,  mati,  vacas,  din,  viainsd,  nktlia  and  vdc. 

(10)  The  efficacy  of  brahman  is  represented  as  similar  to  that 
of  din,  mantra,  arka,  etc.  E.  g.,  VII,  19,  ii  'Quickened  by 
brdhinan  {bralima  jYttas),  be  strong  in  body  (O  Indra).'  Cf.  IX, 
64,  16  'Quickened  by  the  hymn  {d Inj'd  j'litds),  th.&  soma-drops 
are  poured  forth.'  V,  40,  6  'Atri  with  the  fourth  brdhman  dis- 
covered the  sun  hidden  by  unholy  darkness.'  Cf  I,  67,  3 
'  (Agni)  upheld  the  heavens  by  means  of  true  mantras.'  II,  24,  3 
'(Brihaspati)  smote  Vala  through  brahman.''  Cf  V,  31,  4  'The 
priests  magnifying  Indra  with  hymns  [arka)  strengthened  him  for 
slaying  the  serpent.'  Note  also  III,  53,  12  'The  brdhman  of 
Vi^vamitra  protects  the  tribe  of  Bharata'  ;  VI,  75,  19  ^ Brdhmaii 
is  my  protecting  armour'  ;  VII,  33,  3  'Through  your  brdhman, 
O  Vasishtha,  Indra  helped  Sudas  in  the  battle  of  the  ten  kings.'  ^ 
In  X,  162,  1—2  the  wish  is  expressed  that  Agni  be  united  with 
brahman  in  order  to  expell  illness. 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  brdhman  in  these  representative 
passages  ?  From  the  facts  presented  above  it  is  evident  that 
brdhman  is  a  name  for  hymn,  as  it  is  used  interchangeably  for 

iCf.  I  Sam.  VII,  S-9. 


THE  HISTORY  OF   THE    WORD   BRAHMAN.  5 

mantra,  tnati,  inanuian,  inamsd,  dJii,  stoma,  arka,  re,  gir,  vacas, 
uktha,  vac,  etc.,  all  of  which  are  applied  as  names  to  the  Vedic 
hymns.  When  used  in  the  plural  brd/nnaii  seems  to  refer  to  a 
hymn  as  made  up  of  a  collection  of  verses.  This  suggests  that 
in  its  earliest  use  brdhniaii  may  have  referred  to  a  single  brief 
utterance  of  the  priest  in  worship.  A  group  of  such  utterances 
might  be  called  either  distributively  brahvidni  or  collectively 
brdJiinan.  The  essentials  of  Vedic  worship  were  sacrifice  and 
brdhnian.  Both  alike  were  means  of  quickening  and  strengthen- 
ing the  gods.  Indeed,  both  were  offerings,  the  one  material  con- 
sisting of  soma,  ghee,  etc.,  the  other  spiritual,  the  sacrifice  of 
prayer  and  praise.  No  worship  was  complete»without  brdJnnan, 
the  sacred  utterance.  Brdlunan  may  be  rendered  'prayer,'  pro- 
vided that  the  word  prayer  be  taken  in  a  purely  ritualistic  and 
formal  sense.  It  is  not  prayer  in  general,  uttered  or  unuttered, 
stated  or  occasional,  but  rather  "das  rituell  fixirte  Gebet "  (Old- 
enberg),^  "  das  ausgesprochene  Gebet,  sei  es  Preis,  Dank  oder 
Bitte"  (Grassmann),  or  in  general,  as  defined  by  Roth  in  the  St. 
Petersburg  Lexicon,  "jede  fromme  Aeusserung  beim  Gottes- 
dienst."  It  is  "the  holy  word""  (Bloomfield)  which  as  used  in 
the  ritual  becomes  about  equal  to  "  prayer."  So  far  as  usage  is 
concerned,  brdlunan  might  be  rendered  by  '  hymn '  as  well  as  by 
'  prayer ' ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  the  synonyms  of  brdJivian,  viz, 
mantra,  vac,  stoma,  etc.,  might  all  be  brought  under  the  cate- 
gory of  prayer,  as  is  actually  the  procedure  of  Bergaigne.^  In- 
deed Muir,''  as  the  result  of  his  inductive  study  of  Vedic  passages 
gives  the  alternative  meaning  "  hymn  or  prayer."  In  the  ritual- 
istic stages  of  religion  there  is  no  essential  difference  between 
hymn  and  prayer.  Both  are  chanted,  and  the  emphasis  rests 
not  so  much  on  inner  content  as  on  exactitude  of  liturgical  use. 
Secondly,  brdliman  in  the  Atliarva-  Veda  and  the  Brdhmanas. 
These  together  with  the  Yajur-Veda  constitute  the  chief  literary 
documents  of  the  Brdhmana  period.  The  texts  quoted  above 
under  (lo)  concerning  the  magical  efficacy  of  brahman,  indicate 

1  P'eda,   S.  433. 

*In  a  letter  from  Rev.  A.  II.  Ewing,  a  pupil  of  Professor  Bloomfield. 

'  La  religion  vedique,  p.  277. 

*OST.,  Vol.  I,  p.  242. 


6  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  transition  from  the  standpoint  of  the  RV.  to  that  of  the  AV., 
in  which  brahman  frequently  means  magic  formula  or  charm.  As 
examples  note  the  following  texts  as  translated  by  Bloomfield  ^  : 

I,  lo,  I,  '  From  the  wrath  of  the  mighty  do  I,  excelling  in  my  incan- 
tation {brahman),  \Qd.d  out  this  man';  I,  14,  4  'With  the  incanta- 
tion {brahman)  of  Asita  ...  do  I  cover  up  thy  fortune';  I,  23,  4 
'  The  leprosy  ...  I  have  destroyed  with  my  charm  {brahman)' ; 

II,  10,  I  'Guiltless  do  I  render  thee  through  my  charm  {brdh- 
man)'\  III,  6,  8  '  I  drive  them  out  with  my  mind,  drive  them  out 
with  my  thought,  and  also  with  my  incantation  {brahman).'  In 
harmony  with  the  above  texts  is  the  fact  that  the  Atharva-Veda 
is  also  called  the  Brahma-Veda,  either  from  a  schematic  motive 
in  order  that  the  Brahman-priests  might  have  a  Veda  as  well  as 
the  other  three  classes  of  priests,  or  because  it  is  the  Veda  of 
brahmdni,  i.  £\,  potent  texts,  spells,  magical  formulas.  AV.  XV, 
6,  ■f  might  serve  as  a  proof  text  for  the  latter  view.  The  same 
usage  is  found,  though  less  often,  in  the  other  literature  of  the 
period,  e.  g.,  ^at.  Br.^  I,  i,  2,  4  '  He  by  this  very  prayer  (or 
charm,  brahman)  renders  the  atmosphere  free  from  danger  and 
evil  spirits';  I,  7,  i,  8  '  He  thus  makes  over  the  sacrificer's  cattle 
to  it  for  protection  by  means  of  the  brahman.'  See  also  Vdj. 
Sainh.  XI,  82  'I  destroy  the  enemies  by  means  of  brahman' 
(where  brahman  is  explained  by  the  commentator  Mahidhara  as 
the  power  of  the  majitra  or  charm).  It  is  evident  from  the 
above  quoted  passages  that  bibliolatry,  or  the  superstitious  use  of 
sacred  texts,  was  common  enough  in  the  Vedic  age. 

Another  meaning  of  brahman,  essentially  the  same  as  the  two 
meanings  already  given,  is  sacred  formula  or  text.  Thus  :  ^at. 
Br.  I,  5,  4,  6,  '  Let  us  try  to  overcome  one  another  by  speech,  by 
sacred  writ  {vac  brahman)';  II,  i,  4,  lO  '  The  brahman  \s  speech 
{vac) ';  I,  3,  1 ,  3,  '  The  brahman  is  the  sacrificial  formula  '  {brdhma 
yajus);  IV,  5,  2,  10  'This  one  he  maks  fit  for  the  sacrifice  by 
means  of  the  brdhman,  \he  yajiis  ';  VII,  i,  i,  5  'The  brahman  is 
the  mantra';  IV,  i,  i,  4  'The  brahman  is  the  Gdyatn';  Taitt. 

1  SBE.,  Vol.  XLII. 

"rca(  ca  saniani  ca  yajittisi  ca  hrahma  ca. 

3  As  translated  by  Eggeling  (SBE.  Vols.  XII,  XXVI,  XLI,  XLIII  and  XLIV). 


THE  HISTOR  Y  OF   THE  WORD  BRAHMAN.  7 

Savih.  VI,  I,  6,  6  '  The  Gandharvas  were  speaking  the  brdhman, 
the  gods  were  chanting  it.'  So  sacred  is  the  brahman  that  it  con- 
stitutes the  very  speech  of  heaven. 

Thus  far  we  have  found  really  only  one  meaning  for  the  word 
'brahman.'  In  all  the  passages  considered,  whether  in  Sainhitd 
or  Bmhma?ia,  it  is  in  general  'the  holy  word.'  The  emphasis, 
however,  at  different  times  and  in  different  texts  rests  upon  differ- 
ent elements  .in  the  connotation  of  brahman.  Thus  in  the  Rig- 
Veda  it  is  the  form  and  the  function  of  brahman  that  receive  the 
emphasis — the  form  well  wrought  like  a  chariot  and  the  func- 
tion to  strengthen  and  refresh  the  gods ;  in  the  Atliarva-  Veda, 
it  is  the  power  and  potency  of  brahman  ;  while  in  the  Brdhmanas, 
it  is  the  element  of  sacredness  due  to  the  divine  origin,  antiquity, 
efficacy,  and  religious  use  of  brahman.  In  fact,  we  have  here 
three  moments  in  the  Indian  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Hitherto  we  have  considered  the  form  and  potency  and 
sacredness  of  brahman,  the  holy  word,  viewed  as  something  con- 
sisting of  hymn  and  sacred  text,  and  so  external  and  objective. 
But  '  the  holy  word '  may  be  taken  in  a  more  internal  arid  sub- 
jective sense,  as  the  truth,  the  inner  content,  the  sacred  doctrine, 
the  wisdom  and  theology,  of  the  external  word.  Thus,  as  rep- 
resenting the  "theoretical  side"  (Roth)  of  religion,  brahman 
stands  over  against  tapas  'austerity,'  the  practical  side;  just  as 
in  the  N.  T.  faith  (which  includes  knowledge)  stands  over  against 
works.  E.  g.,  AV.  VI,  133,  3,  VIII,  10,  25  'The  seven  Rishis 
live  by  brdhutan  and  tapas';  XII,  i,  i  'Truth  greatness  .  .  . 
tapas,  brdhman,  sacrifice,  support  the  earth';  Cat.  Br.  II,  i,  4, 
10  'The  brdhman  is  the  truth  {satyani)'  In  the  ^at.  Br.  brah- 
man is  defined  in  some  passages  by  trayi  vidyd,  'the  triple 
science'  (/.  e.,  the  combined  doctrine  of  Rik,  Sama  and  Yajus). 
E.  g.,  VI,  1,1,8'  He  created  first  of  all  the  brdhman,  the  triple 
science  ';  II,  6,  4,  2-7  '  With  the  brdhman,  the  triple  science  they 
encompassed  them.'  For  the  meaning  of  '  triple  science  '  cf.  I.  i, 
4,  3  '  The  triple  science  is  sacrifice '  (the  great  doctrine  of  the 
three  Vedas);  IX,  3,  3,  14  'The  Stoma,  and  the  Yajus,  and  the 
Rik,  and  the  Saman,  and  the  Brihat  and  the  Rathantara  (/.  c,  the 
verses  and  meters  of  all  the  Vedas) — this,  doubtless  is  the  triple 


8  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

science';  X,  4,  2,  21  'He  .  .  .  beheld  all  existing  things  in 
the  triple  science,  for  therein  is  the  body  of  all  meters,  of  all 
stomas,  of  all  vital  airs,  and  of  all  the  gods.' 

We  must  now  return  to  the  Rig-Veda  for  a  fresh  point  of 
view.  From  brahman  (nom.  neut.  brdhma,  '  hymn  or  prayer '  ) 
there  is  derived  brahman  (nom.  masc.  brahmd,  the  man  of  the 
brahma,  the  hymnist  or  'prayer').  The  brahma,  as  Muir^ 
points  out,  was  at  first  a  poet  or  sage  (=  rishi,  vipra,  kavi,  cf. 
RV.,  I,  80,  i),  then  a  minister  of  public  worship  in  general,  and 
lastly  a  particular  kind  of  priest  with  special  duties.  As  the 
class  of  Bralnndnas  or  Brahman-priests  formed  itself  gradually, 
adherents  thereto  began  to  be  designated  in  the  later  hymns  and 
verses  of  the  Rik  by  the  names  brahma-putra  (II,  43,  2,  later 
addition,  Grassmann)  and  especially  bralnnand^  both  meaning 
'son  of  a  Brahman -priest. ' "  When  the  distinction  between 
Brahman  and  Kshatriya  had  been  completely  fixed,  then  as 
classes  they  were  often  designated  by  the  abstract  terms  Bralima 
(Sacerdotium,  Geistlichkeit,  Priesthood)  and  Ksatram  (Nobility). 
Thus  in  the  White  Yajiir-  Veda,  the  Atharva-  Veda  and  the 
Brahiuanas  the  two  designations  often  stand  side  by  side 
{Brahma  ca  Ksatram  ca).  E.g.,  Vdj.  Saikh.,  VI,  3,  VII,  21, 
XX,  25,  XXX,  5  ;  AV.,  II,  15,  4,  XV,  10,  3  ;  gat.  Br.,  Ill,  5, 
2,  II.  'The  Brahman  and  the  Kshatra,  these  two  vital  forces.^ 
So  I,  2,  I,  7,  IV,  2,  2,  13,  IX,  4,  I,  7-1 1,  etc.  This  meaning 
of  brahman,  n^-vaeXy  priesthood,  seems  to  have  been  derived  from 
both  brahman  and  brahman. 

There  remains  to  be  investigated  only  one  more  meaning  of 
brahman,  but  it  is  the  greatest  of  all,  namely  Brahman  as  the 
concept  of  the  greatest  energy,  the  highest  reality,  the  self-ex- 
istent. In  the  later  hymns  of  the  Rig-Veda  we  meet  with  Brah- 
manaspati  (  =  Brihaspati)  '  the  Lord  of  prayer. '  This  is  clearly 
a  personification  of  the  mighty  power  which  lies  at  the  heart  of 
the  brahman  or    '  holy  word,'  and  manifests  itself  in  the  wonder- 

iQST.,  Vol.  I,  p.  243, 

^Compare  the  O.  T.  name  of  a  member  of  the  class  of  7iebhiim  'prophets,' 
namely  den-7iai>/ii   '  son  of  a  prophet'  (Amos,  VII,  14). 

"Cf.  Plato's  description  of  separate  priestly  and  warrior  castes,  Timaeus,  pp.  444, 
445,  Jowett's  trans. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   WORD   BRAHMAN.  9 

ful  effects  of  the  sacred  formulas.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  ap- 
pearance of  Brahmanaspati  coincides  in  general  with  the  rise  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  magical  efficacy  of  the  sacred  texts.  We  have 
already  studied  the  doctrine  of  brahman  external  and  objective  as 
hymn,  formula,  and  sacred  text  in  general,  and  also  the  doctrine  of 
brahman  internal  and  subjective  as  the  sacred  truth,  wisdom,  and 
theology  of  the  holy  word.  Brdlunanaspdti,  the  apotheosis  of 
the/^w^rof  the  holy  word,  introduces  us  to  a  third  line  of  develop- 
ment. Very  often  in  the  BrdJimanas  is  Brihaspati  identified  with 
Brahman,  6'.  ^.,  ^at.  Br.,  Ill,  i,  4,  15  '  BrdJima  vai  Brhaspati.^ 
So  also  III,  3,  I,  2,  III,  7,  3,  13,  III,  9,  I,  11-14,  V,  I,  I,  II, 
V,  I,  4,  14,  V,  3,  5,  •]-%,  IX,  2,  3,  3,  etc.  Compare  also  Ait. 
Br.,  I,  19,  I,  Taitt.  Sainh.,  Ill,  i,  i,  4,  etc.  All  this  is  sig- 
nificant. It  indicates  that  for  the  theologians  of  the  Brdli- 
mana  period  a  deeper  meaning  was  discovered  in  the  word 
'  Brahman  '  than  had  hitherto  been  found,  to  wit,  the  same  mean- 
ing as  had  been  expressed  in  the  ancient  hymns  by  Brihaspati, 
the  personification  of  the  pozuer  of  the  holy  word.  It  will  be 
sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  illustrate  this  deeper  meaning  of 
Brahman  by  suitable  quotations  from  the  literature  of  the  period. 
Thus  :  Taitt.  Savih.,  VII,  3,  1,4  '  Limited  are  the  Rik-verses, 
limited  are  the  Sama-verses,  limited  are  the  Yajus-verses,  but 
there  is  no  end  to  that  which  is  Brdlinian'  ;  ^at.  Br.,  Ill,  3,  4,  17 
'The  Brahman  moves  the  gods  onward';  IV,  i,  4,  10  'The 
Brdlunanisthe  world-order  {rtam)';  VI,  i,  i,  10  '  The  Brahman  is 
the  first  born  {prathaviajani)  of  this  All'  ;  VIII,  2,  i,  5  'The 
Brahman  is  the  highest  of  gods'  ;  VIII,  4,  i,  3  'Heaven  and 
earth  are  upheld  by  the  Brdhnian'  ;  X,  3,  5,  10,  *  This  is  the 
Greatest  Brahman  {j'yesthain  Brahman),  for  than  this  there  is 
no  thing  greater  ';  X,  3,  5,  1 1  '  This  Brahman  has  nothing  before 
it  and  nothing  after  it,'  ;  X,  4,  1,9  'I  praise  what  hath  been  and 
what  will  be,  the  Great  BraJnnan  {inaJiad  Brdhina),  the  one 
Aksara,  the  manifold  Brahman,  the  one  Aksara'  ;  X,  6,  3,  i  '  Let 
him  meditate  on  the  Tnie  Brahman  {satyam  Brdhma).  Cf.  II,  i, 
4,  10  '  The  Brahman  is  the  truth  (satyam)'  ;  X,  6,  5,  9  '  Brah- 
man is  the  S&\{-eyiis\.en\.  {siuayajnbhn);  reverence  be  to  Brahman  ! ' 
Note  also  the  following  passages  from  the  Atharva-Veda :  X,  7, 


lO  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

24  *  The  gods,  the  knowers  of  Brahman,  meditate  on  the  Highest 
Brahman'  {^jycstham  Brahma,  cf.  Cat.  Br.,  X,  3,  5,  10)  ;  X,  8,  I 
*  Reverence  be  only  to  that  Highest  Brahman '  ;  X,  7,  17*  The 
men  who  know  the  Brahman  know  the  Highest  {Paramesthiri)  .' 
Thus  Brahman  is  not  merely  (i)  the  external /(Staw  of  the  sacred 
word,  and  (2)  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  word,  but  it  is  also  (3) 
the  pozvcr  which  resides  in  the  heart  of  the  sacred  word,  and  so  in 
the  heart  of  all  things. 

B.     Derivation    of  Brahman. 

The  word  '  brahman  '  is  made  up  of  braJi-  plus  the  common 
Indo-European  suffix  -man.  This  suffix  forms  no}nina  actionis, 
and  more  rarely  nomitia  agcntis.  The  nomina  actionis  vary  be- 
tween the  meaning  of  the  thing  and  the  action.  When  used  as 
infinitives  [e.  g.,  da-mane  =  ob-fxtvai)  they  indicate  the  action  ; 
when  not  so  used,  the  thing.  As  examples  cited  by  Brugmann^ 
we  have  man-man  '  thought,'  vds-man  '  covering,'  dlid-7nan 
'dwelling,'  dd-man  'gift,'  bJiii-man  'earth,'  hJidr-man  'support.' 
Or,  to  take  a  Latin  example,  flu-men  '  river.'  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  meaning  in  all  these  cases  is  concrete  and  not  abstract. 
It  is  thought,  raiment,  house,  gift,  earth,  support,  and  river,  that 
the  words  mean,  rather  than  thinking,  dressing,  dwelling,  giving, 
being,  supporting,  and  flowing.  Brahman  has  two  forms,  brah- 
man and  bralimdn,  which  differ  both  in  gender  and  in  accent. 
They  are  used  respectively  as  noun  of  action  and  noun  of  agent. 
With  these  we  may  compare  dhdr-man  (n)  '  support,'  and  dhar- 
md)i  (m)  'supporter';  also  dd-man  (n)  'gift,'  and  dd-man  (m) 
'  giver.'  We  know  that  in  the  case  of  dharman  and  ddman  the 
roots  are  dhar-  and  da-.  But  brahman  has  exactly  the  same  for- 
mation in  every  respect.  We  must  therefore  conclude  that  brah- 
in  like  manner  represents  a  true  root  form.  Professor  Hopkins  ' 
with  some  hesitation  connects  Brahman  with  "fla(g)men,"  and 
sees  in  it  "an  indication  of  the  primitive  fire-cult  in  antithesis 
to  the  soma-cult."  There  are  two  difficulties  here.  First  the 
phonetic  difficulty  of  connecting  brah-  with   flag.     The  cognate 

1  Comp.  Gra?n.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  365-375. 
^Religions  of  India,  p.  168. 


THE  HISTORY  OF   THE    WORD   BRAHMAN.  II 

verbs   Gr.   ipUyco,   Lat.  flagro,  Skt.  bhrdj,  and  Germ,  blecken,  all 
seem  to  presuppose,  the  IE.  bhlcg,  while  brh  and  barz  go  back 
to  bhrgh.     Again,  this  hypothesis  has  no  support,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  in  the  actual  usage  of  brahman  or  of  its  cognates.     Another 
equation  suggested  by  Dr.  Haug^  in  1 868,  and  lately  championed 
by  Wackernagel  ^  is  that  Brahman  =  Baresman,  the  bunch  of 
sacred  twigs  used  in  the  Zend  ritual.     If  this  be  correct,  then  the 
root  represented  by  brali-  is  bar]L-{brli)  =  Zend  barz,  from  which 
baresman  (=  bares  -f  man)  is   derived.     Before  this  can  be  ac- 
cepted, the  change  from  bark-  to  brah-  must  be  explained.     Old- 
enberg  ^  doubts  such  a  change  and  remarks  :  "  Baresman  ware  ve- 
disch  *barhman  ;  mit  brahman  hat  es  schwerlich  etwas  zu  thun." 
But  Wackernagel  *  shows  pretty  clearly  that  ra  or  ra  sometimes 
stands  in  the  place  of  ar  or  ar  not  only  before  s  +  consonant,  but 
also  before  h  -f  consonant,  as  in  brahman  {barh  brh)  and  drahydnt 
{dark  drJi).     There  is  no  doubt  of  the  derivation  of  baresman  from 
Zend  barz,  for,  as  Jackson"  says,  "  Av.  s  sometimes  results  from 
Av.  z  becoming  s  before  m  ;"  and  he  cites  as  examples  maesinana 
'with  urine'  {iniz  =  mili)  and  barcsmana  'with  baresman'  {barz  = 
barh).     We  may  take  it  as  fairly  well  settled,  then,  that  brahman 
is  the  same  word  etymologically,  both  as  regards  root  and  suffix, 
as  the  Zend  baresman. 

The  next  problem  is  to  determine  the  original  meaning  of  the 
root  brh.  IE.  bhrgh  is  postulated  as  the  original  of  Skt.  brh  and 
Zend  barz.  There  are  many  derivatives  in  Zend,  c.  g.,  barezant 
(^  =  brhant)  'high,'  barez,  bercz  'high,'  barehnis  barezd  'height,' 
barezista  '  very  high  '  (Skt.  barhistha).  We  have  also  in  O,  Ir, 
bri  Gen.  breg  '  mountain,'  Brigit  '  the  exalted'  (Skt.  brhatt,  Zend 
barezaiti);  in  Armen.  /wy  '  height ';  in  Gothic  bailrgs  'fortress,' 
'city'  (cf  Germ.  Bag  and  Burg);  in  Latin /<?;'/;>  {iox  forgtus) 
'strong'  (?);  and  in  Sclavonic  bruzu  'quick'  (?).  Leaving  out 
fortis  and  bruzu  as  doubtful,  we  see  that  all  the  other  cognates 
seem  to  have  the  meaning  'high,'  being  used    primarily    with 

1  Ueber  die  tirspriingliche  Bedeiitung  des  Wortes  Brahman. 

^Altind.  Gram.,  1S96,  S.  213. 

3  Veda,  S.  342,  note  2. 

^  Altind.  Grata.,  S.  212,  fg. 

^  Avesta  Grammar,  1892,  p.  S^- 


12  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

a  spatial  reference.  The  most  important  Skt.  derivative  from 
brh-  is  the  participial  form  brJiat,  which  occurs  about  270  times  in 
RV.  As  Grassmann  points  out,  the  word  brhat  very  often  stands 
side  by  side  with  certain  adjectives  denoting  extension  {iirii,  prthii 
'broad,'  gabliira  'deep,'  rsva  'high')  evidently  as  a  general 
synonym.  It  very  seldom  goes  with  inahdt,  main  '  great '  (only 
three  times).  From  the  usage  of  br/iaf  then  the  conjecture  is 
plausible  that  the  meaning  of  IE.  blirgli  was  '  to  be  extended  ' 
whether  in  length,  breadth,  depth  or  height.  The  most  impres- 
sive form  of  extension  is  extension  upward,  and  this  is  the  mean- 
ing found  in  the  Zend,  O.  Ir.,  and  Gothic  cognates.  Let  us  test 
this  conjecture  as  far  as  possible.  The  root  brh  (with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  participle  brhat)  is  used  only  transitively  with  preposi- 
tions and  in  the  causative  form  without  prepositions.  It  has 
only  two  fundamental  meanings,  '  extend,'  and  '  strengthen.' 
Unless  there  be  some  meaning  still  more  concrete  and  funda- 
mental underlying  both,  we  must  regard  the  meaning  '  extend ' 
as  primary,  and  the  meaning  '  strengthen '  secondary.  That,  as 
between  these  two  meanings,  the  meaning  '  extend  '  is  primary 
is  favored  not  only  by  the  sense  of  the  Zend,  O.  Ir.  and  Gothic 
cognates,  but  also  by  the  fact  that  the  meaning  '  strengthen  '  can 
more  easily  be  derived  from  '  extend '  than  vice  versa.  The 
connection  between  extending  the  hand  and  helping  or  strength- 
ening another  is  well  illustrated  by  the  Arabic  madad  '  help,'  lit. 
extension  (of  the  hand).  If  in  three  passages  of  the  RV.  brli  -f- 
npa  or  sani  means  apparently  to  press  (as  the  arm  upon  or 
around  some  one),  this  meaning  can  be  easily  derived  from  brli  in 
the  sense  of  '  extend,'  the  transition  in  meaning  being  helped  by 
the  intensive  form  of  the  verb  in  two  of  the  three  cases.  That 
the  meaning  of  brli  was  '  to  be  extended '  is  further  supported  by 
the  usao-e  of  barJind  and  barhdnd  in  the  modern  dialects  of 
India,  in  which  the  meaning  is  almost  if  not  quite  exclusively 
'  extend.' 

We  are  now  prepared  to  consider  the  cognate  words  Bares- 
man  and  Brahman.  We  have  seen  that  the  root  underlying  both 
words  means  '  to  be  extended,'  '  to  be  high,'  and  that  the  suffix 
nia)i  forms  nouns  of  action.     We  should  expect  then  that  both 


THE  HISTORY  OF   THE   WORD  BRAHMAN.  1 3 

baresman  and  brahman,  if  used  abstractly  as  infinitives,  would 
have  some  such  meaning  as  extending,  exalting,  presenting,  of- 
fering ;  or,  if  not  so  used,  then  '  thing  extended,  lifted  up,  pre- 
sented, offered.'  How  does  the  actual  usage  of  baresman  agree 
with  this  hypothetical  sense  ?  The  word  '  baresman  '  is  confined 
almost  exclusively  to  the  Yasna  or  sacrificial  portion  of  the 
Avesta,  where  it  occurs  fifty  or  sixty  times.  As  defined  by  De 
Harlez^  it  is  a  "  faisceau  de  branches  de  tamarisque  que  le  pretre 
mazdeen  doit  tenir  a  la  main,  leve  vers  le  ciel,  pendant  la  recita- 
tion des  prieres."  Thus  baresman  as  a  '  thing  extended,  lifted  up, 
presented,'  is  the  sacred  bundle  of  twigs  in  the  hands  of  the  Maz- 
dean  priest.  There  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  text  of  the  Yasna 
that  the  uplifted  Baresman  in  the  hand  of  the  priest  was  regarded 
as  an  emblem  of  adoration,  prayer,  and  praise.  Thus  the  following 
passages  may  be  cited,  as  translated  by  Mills."  '  I  desire  to  ap- 
proach the  stars,  moon  and  sun  with  the  Baresniaii  plants  and 
with  my  praise'  (Yasna,  11,  ii);  'We  present  this  plant  of  the 
Baresman,  and  the  timely  prayer  for  blessings  '  (XXIV,  3) ; 
'This  plant  of  the  Baresman  (and)  the  timely  prayer'  (XXIV, 
8)  ;  '  We  present  .  .  .  this  branch  for  the  Baresman,  and  the 
prayer  for  blessings  '  (Visparad,  XI,  2).  According  to  these  pas- 
sages the  lifting  up  or  presentation  of  the  Baresman  accompanied 
the  recitation  of  the  prayers  and  hymns  of  praise.  That  the  Bar- 
esman or  bunch  of  sacred  twigs  was  an  emblem  of  worship  and 
adoration  is  supported  by  the  similar  use  of  palm  branches  among 
the  Hebrews.  Two  passages  may  be  cited.  "After  these  things 
I  saw  and  behold,  a  great  multitude  .  .  .  standing  before  the 
throne  and  before  the  Lamb,  arrayed  in  white  robes  and  palms 
in  their  hands  ;  and  they  cry  with  a  great  voice,  saying,  Salva- 
vation  unto  our  God  which  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  unto  the 
Lamb"  (Apocal.  loh.,  VII,  9-10).  The  scene  is  laid  in  the 
heavenly  temple,  where  a  great  multitude  of  the  redeemed  as 
white-robed  priests  serve  God  day  and  night  (v.  15)  with  palms 
in  their  hands  and  words  of  adoration  on  their  lips.  These  are 
not  palms  of  victory  but  palms  of  adoration.  As  held  up  or 
presented  they  are  emblematic  of  worship  just  like  Baresman, 

^Manuel,  p.  389.  2SBE.,  Vol.  XXXI, 


14  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

Again  in  Evang.  loh.,  XII,  12-13  we  read  :  "A  great  multitude 
,  .  .  took  the  branches  of  the  palm  trees,  and  went  forth  to 
meet  him,  and  cried  out,  Hosanna:  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord."  We  have  also  palm  branches  borne  in 
the  hand  as  emblems  of  salutation  and  praise.  In  fact  the  uplifted 
attitude  has  ever  been  one  of  the  chief  ways  of  expressing  saluta- 
tion and  adoration.  Consider  the  forms  of  modern  salute.  They 
are  mostly  variations  of  one  fundamental  attitude.  In  saluting 
one  stands  erect,  or  raises  the  hand,  or  presents  arms,  or  lifts  up 
the  voice  in  a  ringing  cheer.  Adoration  is  religious  salutation. 
It  is  expressed  in  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  Scriptures  by  the  uplift- 
ing of  the  person  (Luke,  XVIII,  11),  or  of  the  eyes  (Ps.,  CXXIII, 
I,  Luke,  XVIII,  13),  or  of  the  hands  (Ps.  LXIII,  4,  i  Tim.  II, 
8),  or  of  the  voice  (Isa.  XXIV,  14,  2  Chron.,  V,  13,  Acts.  IV, 
24),  or  of  palm  branches  borne  in  the  hand  (Apocal.  loh.,  VII,  9  ; 
cf.  I  Mac.  XIII.,  51). 

What  then  is  the  connection  in  meaning  between  Baresman 
and  Brahman  ?  Both  mean  apparently  'thing  extended,  lifted  up, 
presented,  offered.  '  But  in  the  Zend  ritual  '  the  thing  lifted  up, 
presented,  offered,'  was  the  Baresman  or  bunch  of  sacred  twigs, 
which  like  the  palm  branches  of  Apocal.  loh.,  VIII,  9,  was  an 
emblem  of  worship,  as  it  were  a  kind  of  visible  adoration.  While 
on  the  other  hand  in  the  Vedic  ritual  '  the  thing  lifted  up,  pre- 
sented, offered,'  was  Brahman,  the  'hymn  or  prayer'  of  adora- 
tion, which  like  the  lifting  up  of  the  voice  in  Isa.  XXIV,  14,  was 
also  an  emblem  of  worship,  as  it  were  a  kind  of  audible  adoration. 
As  there  is  no  essential  difference  betweeen  an  acted  and  visible, 
and  a  spoken  and  audible  salute,  so  there  is  none,  as  regards 
original  purpose,  between  Baresjnan  acted  and  visible  worship 
through  the  lifting  up  of  the  sacred  branches,  and  Brahman  spoken 
and  audible  worship  through  the  lifting  up  of  one's  voice  in  hymn 
and  prayer. 

For  all  this  there  is  a  striking  analogy  in  Hebrew.  The  verb 
rum  means,  like  brh  and  barz,  '  to  be  high.'  In  the  Hiphil  or  cau- 
sative it  means  '  to  lift  up,'  both  of  an  offering  as  presented,  and  of 
the  voice  as  raised  in  prayer  and  adoration.  These  two  uses  of 
Mrim  are  represented  by  the  two  derivatives  tcriundli  and  rbmdm. 


THE  HISTORY  OF   THE    WORD   BRAHMAN.  1 5 

The  former  means  offering  as  somefliing  lifted  up  or  presented  in 
the  ritual,  and  is  rendered  '  heave  offering.'^  The  latter-  means  a 
lifting  up  of  the  voice  in  adoration,  an  offering  of  '  the  fruit  of  the 
lips,'  and  is  rendered  in  the  Revised  Version  '  high  praise,'  and 
by  Canon  Cheyne,  '  lofty  hymn.'^  Terumah,  '  heave  offering  '  is 
the  analogue  of  Baresman  ;  romdm,  '  lofty  hymn,'  the  analogue 
of  Brahman. 

There  is  no  essential  difference  between  '  lifting  up  the  voice  in 
prayer '  and  '  lifting  up  a  prayer.'  Both  idioms  occur,  the  first  in 
Isa.  XXIV,  14,  Acts  IV,  24  and  the  second  in  Isa.  XXXVII,  4, 
Jer.  VII,  16.  In  fact  the  word  z'dc  (Lat.  vox)  in  the  RV.  has  the 
double  meaning  '  voice '  and  '  hymn  or  prayer.'  In  actual  usage 
brahman  is  a  synonym  of  vac.  Both  derivation  and  Vedic  usage 
would  be  expressed  if  we  should  render  'lofty  hymn.' 

Before  the  separation  of  the  Persian  and  Indian  branches  of  the 
Aryan  people,  Baresman  and  Brahman  were  one  word  and  so  had 
a  common  meaning.  That  meaning  has  already  been  referred  to 
from  the  point  of  view  of  etymology  as  'thing  extended,  lifted 
up,  presented,  offered.'  Combining  etymology  with  usage,  we 
get  '  religions  offering '  in  general  as  the  most  probable  meaning 
of  Baresman-Brahman  in  the  prehistoric  period.  The  diverse 
meanings  of  Baresman,  '  the  offering  of  sacred  branches,'  and 
Brahman,  '  the  offering  of  hymn  and  prayer,'  may  be  regarded  as 
differentiations  of  the  original  meaning  of  '  religious  offering  '  in 
general.  Another  hypothesis  is  possible,  to  wit :  that  the  offer- 
ing of  sacred  branches  accompanied  by  hymn  and  prayer,  as  de- 
scribed in  the  Avesta,  was  the  original  meaning  of  Baresman- 
Brahman,  and  that  while  Baresman  has  maintained  its  meaning 
unchanged,  Brahman  has  undergone  a  transference  of  meaning, 
the  custom  of  offering  sacred  branches  having  dropped  out  of 
use  among  the  Indians,  and  so  Brahman  being  applied  exclusively 
to  the  remaining  element  in  the  ritual,  namely  the  offering  of 
hymn  and  prayer.  The  first  hypothesis  seems  to  me  to  be  the 
safer  one.     Centuries  intervened  between  the  prehistoric  period 

1  Cf.  Ex.  XXIX,  27,  'The  thigh  of  the  heave  offering  .   .   .  which  is  heaved  up.' 
2Pss.  LXVI,  17,  CXLIX,  6.     Text  unfortunately  not  absolutely  sure. 
3  The  Book  of  Psalms,  N.  Y.,  1895. 


1 6  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

when  Baresman  and  Brahman  were  one  word  with  one  meanins" 
and  the  period  of  rehgious  practice  reflected  in  the  earhest  Indian 
and  Persian  sources.  It  is  quite  possible  that  in  the  prehistoric 
period  Baresman-Brahman  may  have  referred  to  the  '  hfting  up  ' 
or  '  offering  '  of  many  things,  e.  g.,  the  parts  of  the  animal  sacri- 
fice (cf.  Heb.  terijmah),  sacred  branches,  sacred  formulae  of  hymn 
and  prayer,  etc. 

The  dominant  explanation  of  the  word  '  brahman '  is  that  of 
Professor  Roth  (St.  Petersburg  Lexicon)  who  makes  it  to  mean 
originally  "  die  als  Drang  und  Fiille  des  Gemiiths  auftretende 
und  den  Gottern  zustrebende  Andacht."  He  is  followed  by 
Whitney,^  who  says  that  brahman  is  "  from  the  root  bark  '  exert, 
strain,  extend,'  and  denotes  simply  'worship'  as  the  offering 
which  the  elevated  affections  and  strained  desires  of  the  devout 
bring  to  the  gods"  ;  and  also  by  Deussen,^  who  defines  the  or- 
iginal meaning  of  brahman  as  "  der  zum  Heiligen,  Gottlichen 
emporstrebende  Wille  des  Menschen."  According  to  this  ex- 
planation, brahman  is  not  t/ie  iipliftcd  voice  of  the  priestly  wor- 
shiper in  prayer  and  hymn  so  much  as  tlie  uplifted  soid^  the  ex- 
altation of  the  spirit  in  worship.  Both  ideas  undoubtedly  in- 
volve each  other  to  some  extent.  The  question  is  which  is  the 
more  primitive  idea.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  weight  of  the  evi- 
dence is  in  favor  of  the  more  concrete  notion  as  beine  the  more 
primitive.  In  the  Vedic  period  religion  was  ritualistic,  cosmo- 
logical,  objective.  It  is  only  when  we  reach  the  period  of  the 
Upanishads  that  religion  becomes  psychological  and  introspective, 
in  a  word,  subjective.  In  the  course  of  the  Upanishad  specula- 
tions Brahman  undoubtedly  came  to  mean  something  not  alto- 
gether different  from  the  "  Wille  "  of  Schopenhauer.  But  to  hold 
that  this  was  the  original  meaning  of  brahman  seems  to  me  a 
violent  anacronism.  The  following  considerations  may  be  ad- 
duced against  this  theory  :  (i)  Out  of  240  or  more  passages  in 
which  the  word  '  brahman  '  occurs  in  the  RV.  Grassmann  finds  the 
meaning  "  Erhebung  des  Gemiithes  "  in  only  five.     But  in  these 

1  Or.  &=  Ling.  Stud.,  1S73,  p.  2S,  note. 

2  Vedanfa,  S.  1 28. 

3  Cf  ,  Ps.  XXV,  I. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE    WORD   BRAHMAN.  1 7 

passages  also  brahman  can   be  interpreted  without  violence  as 
'hymn  or  prayer.'     The  phrase    braJunand   vandamdna   imdm 
dhiyam  (III,  18,  3  only  here)  alone  gives  any  support  to  the 
view  of  Grassmann.     But  it  may  be  rendered  '  through  a  hymn 
{brahman)  uttering  this  meditation  '  as  well  as  by  '  through  in- 
ward devotion  {brahman)  uttering  this  hymn.'     (2)  To  assic^n  to 
brahman  as  its  fundamental  meaning  '  the  exaltation  of  the  spirit 
in  worship'  illustrates  the  psychological  danger,  in  connection 
with  the  interpretation  of  all  ancient  texts,  of  reading  them  in 
the  light  of  modern  ideas.     For,  as  Professor  Max  Mueller  says,^ 
"  Though  the  idea  of  prayer  as  swelling  or  exalted  thought  may 
be  true  with  us,  there  is  little,  if  any,  trace  of  such  thoughts  in 
the  Veda."     (3)  The  interpretation  of  Sdyana  the  great  orthodox 
commentator  on  the  Rig- Veda  (d.  1387  A.  D.)  is  worth  noticing. 
He  halts  between  the  meanings  '  hymn  '  {mantra,  stotra)  and  of- 
fering {yajTia,  ajina).     But  if  our  interpretation  is  correct,  brahman 
in  the  RV.  is  nothing  else  than  just  a  hymn  lifted  up,  presented, 
offered  to  God  in  worship.     According  to  this,  Sdyana  is  not  so 
very  far  wrong  after  all. 

To  go  back  to  the  original  meaning  of  brh  {bhrgh),  it  is  pos- 
sible, as  already  hinted,  that  it  was  more  concrete  than  either 
'extend'    or  'strengthen.'     The  meaning   'grow'  would  fit  in 
very  well.     That  which  grows  extends  itself  and  becomes  strong. 
To  make  to  grow  is  to  '  make  big  and  large.'  '     But  if  '  grow  ' 
was  the  original  meaning  of  brh,  it  was  dropped  at  a  very  remote 
period,  and  only  the  derived  meanings  '  extend  '  and  *  strengthen  ' 
retamed.     So  far  as  I  am  aware,  brh  is  never  used  in  the  sense  of 
either  '  to  grow'  or   'to  make  to  grow'  (of  something  organic). 
Still  the  meaning  'to  grow'  is  assumed  by  the  Dhatupath  {irddhau) 
and  accepted  by  Haug,  Max  Mueller,  et  al.     There  is  no  objection 
to  the  hypothesis  that  the  prehistoric  meaning  of  brh  was  '  to 
grow,'  provided  that  it  be  remembered  that  this  meaning  was 
early  dropped,  and   so  cannot  be  supported  by  actual  usage  in 
the  historic  period.     For  ^^r^,  Jackson  ^   gives    the    meanings 

1  Six  Systems  of  Indian  Philosophy,  p.  70. 

2  Whitney,  Roots,  18S5. 
^  Avesta  Gram.,  p.  51. 


1 8  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

'grow  up,  be  high,  great.'  The  Zend  derivatives  all  apparently 
mean  '  high '  or  '  height '  alone,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Baresman,  which,  as  meaning  bunch  of  twigs,  may  contain  a  hint 
of  an  original  meaning  '  to  grow  up,'  therefore  growth. 

C.      Connection  of  the  various  meanings  of  Brdliman. 

Having  finished  the  discussion  of  the  derivation  and  usage  of 
brahman,  we  are  prepared  to  consider  the  problem  of  the  unifica- 
tion of  its  various  meanings.  These  are,  as  given  by  Roth  :  (i) 
pious  utterance  in  divine  worship,  (2)  holy  formula,  (3)  holy 
word,  (4)  holy  wisdom,  (5)  holy  life  (the  Brahmanical  chastity), 
(6)  the  Absolute,  (7)  holy  order  (the  Brahmanical  conininnit}').  Of 
these  meanings  nos.  (5)  and  (7)  must  be  eliminated  as  of  com- 
plex derivation.  The  meaning  '  chastity  '  (no.  5)  is  clearly  de- 
rived mediately  through  the  idea  of  bj^ahmacarya,  the  life  of  the 
brahmacarin  or  theological  student,  of  whom  strict  chastity  was 
required.  And  the  meaning  'holy  order'  or  'priesthood,'  as 
already  pointed  out,  is  to  be  derived  from  the  joint  idea  of  brah- 
man and  brahman.  Perhaps,  too,  brahman  came  to  be  used  in  the 
sense  of  '  priesthood  '  as  the  correlative  of  Ksatra  '  nobility  '  (cf. 
Brahma  ca  Ksatram  ca),  i.  e.,  through  the  working  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  analogy.  There  remain,  then,  five  meanings  of  brah- 
man to  be  unified.  We  begin  with  the  Vedic  meaning  as 
'  hymn  or  prayer.'  How  brahman  came  to  have  this  meaning 
has  been  sufficiently  indicated.  We  are  not  justified  in  assuming 
that  brahman  had  first  the  meaning  of  '  word '  in  general,  which 
only  afterwards  received  the  specialized  sense  of  religious  or 
sacred  word.  Historically,  we  have  to  begin  with  the  meaning 
'hymn  or  prayer.'  There  is  no  direct  proof  of  any  meaning 
more  primitive  in  Sanskrit.  Brahman,  as  'hymn  or  prayer,'  grad- 
ually with  the  creation  of  a  sacred  literature  came  to  have  the 
larger  meaning  of  '  holy  word  '  in  general.  This  process  may  be 
illustrated  from  the  parallel  process  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Here  the  most  primitive  unit  of  revelation  is  the  tordh  or  oral 
deliverance  of  the  priest  on  some  matter  pretaining  to  religious 
life  or  worship.  But  since  the  first  canon  was  a  collection  or 
such  toroth  or   '  laws,'   the   word  Tordli  came  to  have    a   more 


THE  HISTORY   OF   THE    WORD   BRAHMAN.  1 9 

comprehensive  sense  as  the  Tbrdh  or  '  Law  '  (of  Moses).  Finally 
the  meaning  of  Tordh  was  so  enlarged  that  it  covered  the  whole 
Old  Testament  in  its  antithesis  to  the  New  (cf.  Evang.  loh.,  I,  17). 
The  use  of  the  word  '  Veda '  is  analogous.  It  may  mean  either 
(i)  the  Rig-Veda,  or  (2)  all  three  (or  four)  Vedas,  or  (3)  the 
whole  religious  literature  known  as  Qruti  or  Revelation  in  its 
antithesis  to  Smriti  or  Tradition. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  five  remaining  mean- 
ings of  brahman  may  be  reduced  easily  and  naturally  to  three  : 
namely  (i)  Brahman,  Xht.  objective  word  as  sacred  hymn,  sacred 
formula,  and  sacred  text  in  general  ;  (2)  Brahman,  the  subjective 
word  as  sacred  wisdom  and  theology,  the  content  and  meaning 
of  the  objective  word  ;  and  (3)  Brahman  tlie  hnmanent  Word, 
the  energy  which  manifests  itself  in  both  sacred  hymn  and  sacred 
order,  and  indeed  in  all  things.  In  this  way  the  various  mean- 
ings of  Brahman  are  articulated  together  in  one  common  organ- 
ism and  so  unified.  There  is  indeed  a  development  of  meaning, 
but  it  is  both  natural,  and,  in  a  sense,  inevitable.  For  consider 
the  parallel  development  in  the  West.  In  the  O.  T.  we  have 
the  three  stages  fairly  well  represented  :  ( i )  The  Torotli  or  de- 
liverances of  the  priests  concerning  matters  of  worship.  These- 
when  finally  collected  formed  the  objective  word.  (2)  The  Dcb- 
har-jalrweh,  or  message  of  Jahweh  through  the  prophet,  in 
which  there  was  a  larger  emphasis  on  the  inner  content  or 
doctrine  of  the  word  ;  and  (3)  the  Hochmah  Wisdom,  of  Jahweh, 
which  in  Prov.  VIII,  is  hypostasized.  In  Greek  philosophy,  too, 
especially  in  Stoicism,  we  have  {i)  loyo::  evoiddszo-,  'the  internal 
word,'  (2)  Aoyo-  ~po<forjix6-,  'the  external  word,'  and  (3)  Uyo:; 
a-tpno.Tu6z,  '  the  immanent  word  '  or  reason  of  God,  which  works 
in  the  heart  of  all  things.  These  two  streams,  namely  Hebrew 
religion  and  Greek  philosophy,  find  their  synthesis  in  the  New 
Testament  :  and  so  we  have  there  also  a  threefold  doctrine  of  the 
word  as  :  (i)  Scripture,  the  written  and  objective  word  ;  (2)  the 
inner  meaning  and  content  of  the  word  as  '  truth'  (Evang.  loh., 
XVII,  17),  'spirit  and  life'  (Id.  VI,  6^))  and  (3)  the  Adyo-:  as 
the  Divine,  Heavenly  and  Creative  Word.  May  we  not  say  in 
words  used  by  Oldenberg  in  another  connection  that  this  dialec- 


20 


A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 


tic  movement  in  Hebrew,  Indian,  Greek,  and  Christian  thought 
"has  something  of  the  calm  inevitable  necessity  of  a  natural 
process  ?"^ 

It  is  no  wonder  that  some  scholars  have  sought  to  provide  a 
basis  for  the  meaning  '  word  '  as  the  original  meaning  of  brahman 
by  trying  to  connect  brh  with  vrdh  'to  grow,'  from  which 
verbuvi,  Wort,  word,  may  perhaps  be  derived.  The  attempt 
can  hardly  be  pronounced  successful.  There  seems  to  be  no 
possible  phonetic  connection  between  bhrgh  and  7rdh  ;  and  be- 
sides even  the  connection  of  verbum,  etc.,  with  vrdli  is  disputed.^ 
Moreover,  the  attempt  is  unnecessary.  Brahman  gets  the  mean- 
ing *  word '  in  its  own  way.  As  a  name  for  Vedic  '  hymn  or 
prayer '  it  came  gradually  in  the  course  of  the  growth  of  the 
Indian  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  mean  '  the  holy  word.' 
The  threefold  development  of  meaning,  as  explained  above,  is 
not  at  all  dependent  on  the  question  of  derivation.  Any  one 
of  the  synonymous  terms  for  'hymn'  or  'prayer,'  as  c.g.,stotra 
or  nianisd,  might  have  had  the  same  development,  if  stotdras  or 
manisinas  had  acquired  the  supreme  position  which  the  Brahman- 
priests  acquired.  I  here  submit  a  (tentative)  synopsis  of  the 
meanings  of  the  word  brahman.  Its  derivatives,  Brahman, 
Brdlmianaspdti,  and  brahmacarya,  must  be  introduced  in  order 
to  make  the  synopsis  complete. 


Brahman 


I 

Word  objective 

I 

I  2  3 

Hymn  Spell  Text 


II 

Word  subjective 
( Theology ) 


Brahniacarya- 
( Studentship) 


Brahmanaspati 
111 


III  Y 

Word  Immanent 

(Absolute) 


Brahman 
(Priest) 


I.  Priesthood.     2.  Chastity. 


1  Buddha,  p.  29. 

2£.  g.,  by  Meyer  {Griech.  Gram.,  1896,  S.  231,  320),  who  connects  verbum  with 
Gr.  iipu  VYtp  'to  say'  /.  e.,  ver-bum. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Unity  in  the  Pre- 

Upanishad  Literature, 

A. 

Uie  growth  of  the  niojiistic  conception  in  the  period  of  the  Rig-  Veda 
and  in  the  region  of  the  Panjdb. 

Deussen  remarks  that  "the  first  and  oldest  philosophy  of  a 
people  is  to  be  found  in  their  religion."  ^  This  is  preeminently- 
true  of  the  religion  of  the  Rig-Veda,  because  of  the  speculative 
element  which  was  present  from  the  very  beginning.  The  oldest 
hymns  reveal  a  naive  childlike  conception  of  nature  as  displayed 
in  its  most  striking  manifestations.  The  sun  in  the  heavens,  the 
fire  on  the  hearth,  at  once  beneficent  and  destructive,  the  storm- 
winds,  the  thunder-bolt,  the  blushing  dawn,  the  all-embracing 
heaven — these  were  the  things  which  called  into  activity  the  re- 
ligious and  speculative  tendencies  of  the  Vedic  Aryans.  Take 
the  case  of  fire  {agni).  Professor  Max  Mueller  has  written  the 
biography  of  Agni,^  in  which  the  theogonic  process  is  manifest 
by  which  agni  '  fire  '  becomes  finally  Agni  '  god.'  The  principle 
of  causality  seems  to  have  been  at  work  together  with  the  primi- 
tive tendency  to  personification.  We  have,  then,  personification, 
idealization  and  apotheosis  as  processes  connecting  agni  '  fire ' 
with  Agni  '  god.'  Or,  to  put  it  in  another  way,  Agni,  the  mys- 
tery of  fire,  seemed  to  demand  for  its  explanation  an  agent  or 
genius.  Hence  behind  agni-phenomenal  was  postulated,  as  zve 
would  say,  agni-noumenal,  the  genius  of  fire,  who  was  ideahzed 
and  elevated  to  divine  honors.  Thus  natural  law  was  conceived 
anthropomorphically.  In  the  search  after  causes  '  the  gods  were 
the  first  philosophy.'  ^ 

A  gradual  change  or  movement  is  discernible  in  Vedic  thought. 
Since  the   gods   were  '  an   intellectual   creation  '  ^  of  the  Aryan 

'  Gesc/iichte,  S.  77.  *  Max  Mueller,  Six  Systems,  p.  48. 

^  Physical  Religion,  pp.  144-176.  *  Deussen,  op.  cil.,S.   79. 


22  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

mind,  the  same  power  which  made  could  also  unmake.  Hence 
successive  deities  rise  above  the  horizon  as  it  were,  have  their 
period  of  ascendancy  and  then  decline.  Thus,  in  the  age  of  the 
Rig-Veda  Dyaus  and  Varuna  are  vanishing  gods.  Indra,  the 
warrior  god,  holds  the  supreme  place  in  the  Vedic  pantheon,  the 
greatest  number  of  hymns  being  written  in  his  honor.  But  even 
Indra  is  finally  doubted  and  ridiculed.^  Prajapati  is  just  men- 
tioned in  the  Rig- Veda,  but  in  the  period  of  the  Yagur-Veda  he 
is,  like  Zeus,  '  the  father  of  gods  and  men.'  Some  of  the  later 
Vedic  gods  are  mere  products  of  speculative  abstraction.  Thus 
Brdhmaiiaspdti  is  simply  the  hypostasis  of  the  power  of  the 
brahman  '  hymn  or  prayer  '  ;  Prajapati,  of  the  power  of  genera- 
tion, and  Tapas  of  the  power  of  austerity.' 

Further,  the  movement  discernible  in  the  conception  of  deity 
is,  on  the  whole,  a  movement  towards  a  doctrine  of  unity.  Such 
a  tendency  was  involved  in  the  Vedic  conception  of  nature.  As 
Oldenberg  says  :  "  Fiir  den  vedischen  Glauben  ist  die  ganze  den 
Menschen  umgebende  Welt  beseelt."^  This  being  so,  then  sooner 
or  later  speculative  thought  was  bound  to  grasp  the  one  under- 
lying 'self  or  'soul'  of  things.  We  may  compare  early  Greek 
philosophy,  in  which  a  hylozoistic  conception  of  nature  soon 
reached  its  logical  conclusion  in  the  monism  of  the  Eleatic  school. 
Again,  the  use  of  dcva,  '  the  bright  heavenly  one,'  as  a  general 
epithet  of  the  gods,  seems  to  carry  with  it  the  suggestion  at  least 
that  all  the  gods  participate  in  one  common  nature  or  essence. 
At  any  rate  there  is  evidence  of  a  tendency  toward  classification 
and  fusion,  all  of  which  points  in  the  direction  of  unity.  Thus, 
according  to  their  spheres  of  activity,  the  gods  receive  a  three- 
fold classification  as  gods  of  the  sky,  gods  of  the  mid-air,  and 
gods  of  the  earth.  The  number  of  the  gods  was  apparently  con- 
structed on  the  basis  of  this  threefold  division,  since  they  all 
represent  multiples  of  three,  as  three  or  thirty-three  or  thirty- 
three  million.  Further,  on  the  basis  of  unity  of  function  we 
have  the  conception  of  'dual  gods,'  e.  g.,  Indra-Varuna,  Indra- 
Soma,   Agni-Soma,    Indra-Agni,   etc.,    according   to   which  two 

iCf.  RV,  II,  12,  5,  VIII,  loo,  3,  X,  119,  etc. 
2  Veda,  S.  39. 


THE   GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC   CONCEPTION.      23 

gods  are  combined   in   the   dual  and   then  viewed  as   a   unity. 
Sometimes,  too,  the  functions  of  all  the  gods  are  apparently  con- 
ceived as  overlapping  and  more  or  less  identical,  and  so  there  is 
the  name  Vi^ve  Devas,   'all-gods,'  which  name  is  easily  inter- 
changeable with  any  abstract  designation  of  the  divine  totality. 
All  of  this  betrays  the  first  crude  beginnings  of  a  systematizing 
and  unifying  spirit.     Closely  related  to  the  tendency  to  syncre- 
tism and  fusion,  is  another  parallel  but  perfectly  distinct  tendency, 
which  Max  Mueller  has  aptly  called  Hcnotheism.     This  term  de- 
scribes the  impulse  of  the  Vedic  poet  to  withdraw  his  attention 
from  all  other  devas  and  to  exalt  for  the  time  being  the  immedi- 
ate object  of  adoration,  whichever  deva  it  may  be,  into  a  supreme 
deity.     As  Eggeling  says  :   "It  is  this  immcdiateiiess  of  impulse 
under  which  the  human  mind  in  its  infancy  strives  to  give  utter- 
ance to  its  emotions  that  imparts  to  many  of  its  outpourings  the 
ring  of  monotheistic  fervor."  ^     Henotheism  may  be  regarded  as 
a  kind  of  dim  recognition  of  an  underlying  unity.     As  Schroeder 
says  :    "  Es  ist  eine  Tendenz,   die  uns  zuletzt  hinfiihrt    zu  der 
Erkenntniss  dass  all  die  verschiedenen  Gottergestalten  im  Grunde 
gar  nicht  von  einander  unterschieden  sind,  dass  sie  alle  im  Grunde 
doch  nur  Einer  sind,  dass  aus  dem  Einen  sie  alle  sich  entfaltet, 
eine  Tendenz  zum  Glauben  an  das  "iv  y.ai  zav,  zum  Paiitheis?m(s."  ^ 
For  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Vedic  gods  are  rarely  if  ever 
thought  of  quite  apart  from  the  natural  forces  and  phenomena  of 
which  they  are  in   most   cases  mere  personifications.     As   such 
they  might  easily  be  thought  of  as  only  various  manifestations  of 
the  One  Reality,  the  mystery  that  dwells  in  all  things.     So,  e.  g., 
in  the  hymn  of  Dirghatamas  (I,  164,  46)  : 

That  which  is  one  the  sages  call  diversely  ; 
They  name  it  Agni,  Yama,  Matari^van. 

And  so  when  Agni,  for  example,  is  approached  by  the  devout 
singer,  he  may  be  conceived,  as  ive  would  say,  not  simply  as  a 
manifestation  of  the  One  Reality,  but  rather  as  the  One  Reality 
itself  under  a  special  manifestation. 

^  Ency.  Brit.,  IX  Ed.,  Art.  Brahmanism. 
^Kitltw,  S.  76. 


24  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

To  illustrate  this  conception  of  the  underlying  unity  of  things, 
as  it  is  set  forth  in  the  Rig- Veda,  I  have  selected  for  special  treat- 
ment the  seven  hymns  which  from  this  point  of  view  seem  to  me 
most  important.  These  are  hymns  72,  81,  90,  121,  125,  129 
and  1 90  of  the  tenth  book.  Of  these  I  offer  the  following  met- 
trical  translations.  The  aim  is  simply  to  reproduce  the  thought 
and  meter  of  the  original,  and  I,  of  course,  make  no  claim  to 
literary  excellence.     The  order  is  after  Deussen. 

The  Hymn  of  Creation,  X,  I2g. 

1.  Then  was  there  neither  being  nor  non-being, 
Nor  airy  sphere  nor  heaven  overarching ; 

What  covered  all  ?  and  where  ?  in  whose  protection  ? 
Was  there  a  sea,  a  deep  abyss  of  waters  ? 

2 .  Then  was  nor  death  nor  anything  immortal, 
No  night  was  there,  nor  of  the  day  appearance. 
Breathed  breathless  then  in  self-existence  That  One, 
Other  than  it,  of  any  kind,  there  was  not. 

3.  Darkness  there  was ;  and  by  the  darkness  covered 
Was  all  this  world  at  first,  a  wat'ry  chaos  ; 

A  germ  lay  hidden  in  its'  secret  casing. 

Which  by  the  might  of  heat  was  born  as  That  One. 

4.  From  whom  in  the  beginning  love  developed, 
Which  is  the  primal  germ  of  conscious  spirit ; 
The  bond  of  being  in  non-being  seeking 
Poets  with  insight  in  the  heart  discovered. 

5.  Across  all  things  their  measuring-line  extended. 
What  was  above,  and  what  was  found  beneath  it  ? 
Seed-bearers  were  there  and  developed  forces  ; 
Beneath,  self-power ;  above,  its  revelation. 

6.  But  who  knows,  who  is  able  to  declare  it, 
Whence  sprang  originally  this  creation  ? 
Afterwards  came  the  gods  into  existence  ; 

Who  then  can  know  from  whence  it  had  its  being  ? 

7.  How  this  creation  came  into  existence. 
Whether  as  uncreated  or  created  ; 

He  who  in  highest  heaven  looks  out  upon  it. 
He  knows  forsooth,  or  does  not  even  he  know  ? 


THE   GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC   CONCEPTION.      25 

TJic  Hynvi  to  Hiranyagarbha,   X,    121. 

1.  In  the  beginning  rose  Hira7iyagarbha, 
Born  as  the  single  lord  of  every  creature  ; 

He,  too,  it  was  that  stablished  earth  and  heaven, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

2.  He  who  gives  breath  and  strength,  and  whose  instruction 
Revered  is  by  the  gods  and  all  the  creatures ; 

Whose  shadow  immortality  and  death  is, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

3.  He  who  in  majesty  is  the  one  monarch 

O'er  all  things  breathing  and  o'er  all  things  dying, 
Who  rules  two-footed  and  four-footed  creatures, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

4.  He  by  whose  might  exist  these  snowy  mountains, 
The  ocean  and  the  stream  of  which  they  fable  ; 
Whose  all-embracing  arms  are  the  world-regions, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

5.  He  through  whom  sky  is  firm  and  earth  is  steady. 
Through  whom  sun's  light  and  heaven's  arch  are  stablished; 
Who  fixed  the  airy  sphere  twixt  earth  and  heaven, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

6.  He  to  whom  look  the  rival  hosts  in  battle. 
Sustained  by  his  support  and  anxious-hearted  ; 
O'er  whom  he  as  the  sun  new  risen  shines  forth, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

7.  When  first  the  mighty  all -pervading  waters 
Came  germ-containing,  agni-generating, 
Thence  rose  he  who  is  of  the  gods  the  one  life, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

8.  E'en  he  who  in  his  might  surveyed  the  waters. 
Which  force  contain  and  sacrifice  engender  ; 

Who  o'er  the  gods  rules  as  the  one  supreme  god, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 

9.  May  he  not  harm  us,  he,  earth's  generator. 
He  who  with  order  fixed  begat  the  heaven. 

And  gendered,  too,  the  bright  and  mighty  waters, — 
What  god  shall  we  adore  with  sacrifices  ? 


26  A   STUDY  OF   THE  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

lo.   Prajapati,  than  thee  there  is  no  other, 

Who  holds  in  his  embrace  the  whole  creation  ; 
May  that  be  ours  which  we  desire  when  off' ring 
Worship  to  thee,  may  we  be  lords  of  riches. 


The  Hymn  to   Tapas  and  Sanivatsara,  X,   190. 

1.  From  Tapas,  the  all-glowing  heat. 
Were  generated  law  and  truth  ; 
From  it  was  generated  night. 
And  from  it,  too,  the  swelling  sea. 

2.  And  from  the  ocean's  swelling  tide 
Begotten  was  the  circling  year  ; 
Which  ordereth  the  day  and  night. 
And  ruleth  all  that  move  the  eye  ; 

3.  Which,  as  creator,  stablished  well 
In  order  fair  the  sun  and  moon, 
The  heavens  also  and  the  earth, 
The  atmosphere  and  light  of  sun. 


Tlic  Hymn  to    Vi^vakannan,   X,   <Si. 

He  who  has  entered,  off' ring,  into  all  things, 
As  the  wise  sacrificer  and  our  father  ; 
He  through  the  prayer  of  men  desiring  riches, 
Through  all  the  lower  world  diffused  his  being. 

But  what  served  as  a  standing  place  .    .    . 

What  as  a  firm-set  basis  and  in  what  way. 

From  which  earth-generating  Vigvakarman 

With  might  o'erarched  the  heavens,  seeing  all  things? 

On  all  sides  are  his  eyes,  his  mouth  on  all  sides. 
On  all  sides  are  his  arms,  his  feet  on  all  sides. 
The  one  god  he  with  mighty  arms  and  pinions 
Forges  together  heaven  and  earth,  creating. 

AVhat  was  the  forest,  what  indeed  was  that  tree. 

From  which  the  gods  have  hewn  out  earth  and  heaven  ? 

Ye  sages  wise,  search  out  in  spirit  this  whereon 

He  took  his  stand,  when  he  established  all  things  firm. 


THE   GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC   CONCEPTION.      27 

5.  What  are  the  highest  mansions  and  the  lowest, 
And  these  here  in  the  midst,  O  Vifvakarman, 
That  teach  thy  friends  !  And,  O  thou  self-existent. 
Strong  one,  in  off' ring  offer  up  thine  own  self. 

6.  Strengthened  by  sacrifice,  O  Vi^vakarman, 
Do  thou  thyself  offer  up  earth  and  heaven  ; 
And  though  on  all  sides  men  in  error  wander. 
May  he  be  our  rich  lord  of  sacrifices. 

7.  Him  now,  who  quick  as  thought  is,  let  us  summon, 
Lord  of  speech  Vi^vakarman,  for  our  succour. 
May  he  delight  himself  in  all  our  service. 

Who  blesseth  all  and  doeth  good  to  all  men. 

The  Hymn    to  Brdhmanaspdti,  X,    72. 

1.  The  genesis  of  the  bright  gods 
We  will  declare  with  Avonder  deep, 
Uttered  in  hymns  for  him  who  shall 
In  coming  generations  hear. 

2.  Brahmanaspati  like  a  smith 
Together  forged  whatever  is  ; 
When  gods  existed  not  as  yet. 
Then  being  from  non-being  rose. 

3.  In  times  when  gods  existed  not. 
Then  being  from  non-being  rose. 
The  spaces  of  the  world  were  born, 
From  her  they  call  Uttanapad. 

4.  The  earth  was  from  Uttanapad 
Born,  and  the  spaces  from  the  earth  ; 
From  Aditi  arose  Daksha, 

Again  from  Daksha  Aditi. 

5.  Born  first  of  all  is  Aditi, 

Who,   Daksha,  thine  own  daughter  is  ; 
After  her  were  the  gods  produced. 
The  blessed  and  immortal  ones. 

6.  When  ye  stood  in  the  swelling  flood. 
Ye  gods,  who  well  established  are  ; 
Then  as  from  dancers  from  you  whirled 
Upward  in  mighty  clouds  the  dust. 


28  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

7.  When  ye  like  mighty  athletes  caused 
The  worlds,  ye  gods,  to  emanate. 
Then  lifted  ye  the  sun  on  high, 
That  in  the  ocean  hidden  lay. 

8.  Eight  valiant  sons  had  Aditi, 
Who  from  her  body  were  produced. 
With  seven  she  went  among  the  gods, 
While  she  the  egg-born  cast  away. 

9.  With  seven  sons  went  Aditi 
Up  to  the  ancient  race  divine  ; 
The  egg-born  she  surrendered  to 
The  sway  of  birth  and  now  of  death. 

The  Hymn  to  Vac,  X,  125. 

1.  I  wander  with  the  Rudras  and  the  Vasus 
With  the  Adityas  and  the  Vigve  Devas  ; 
'Tis  I  that  cherish  Varuna  and  Mitra, 
Indra  and  Agni  and  the  heavenly  horsemen. 

2.  The  soma-plant  streaming  with  juice  support  I, 
Tvashtar  and  Pushan  I  support  and  Bhaga. 
'Tis  I  that  give  wealth  to  the  sacrificer, 

Who  offers  zealously  the  pressed  out  soma. 

3.  I  am  the  queen,  the  gatherer  of  riches, 

The  knowing,  first  of  those  that  merit  worship. 
Me  have  the  gods  in  every  place  established. 
That  omnipresent  I  may  enter  all  things. 

4.  Through  me  it  is  that  mankind  breathe  and  eat  food, 
See  what  is  visible  and  hear  what's  spoken. 

In  me  unconsciously  they  have  their  being  ; 
Hear  one  and  all,  my  word  deserveth  credence. 

5.  Whoever  speaks,  'tis  I  that  am  the  speaker, 
Uttering  things  pleasing  both  to  gods  and  mortals. 
Whom  I  delight  in,  powerful  I  make  him. 

Make  him  a  Brahman,  or  a  sage  or  Rishi. 

6.  I  too  am  he  that  bends  the  bow  for  Rudra, 

That  his  keen  shaft  may  smite  the  Brahman-hater. 
'Tis  I  that  stir  men  with  the  joy  of  battle. 
Both  earth  and  heaven  I  fill  with  mine  own  essence.- 


THE   GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC   CONCEPTION.      29 

7.  In  highest  heaven  bore  I  the  heaven -father, 
Yet  is  my  birthplace  in  the  ocean-waters  ; 
From  thence  divided  am  I  into  all  things, 

And  with  my  height  reach  up  to  yonder  heaven. 

8.  *Tis  I  that  wind  resemble  as  it  blows  hence  ; 
Thus  do  I  reach  and  comprehend  what  e'er  is 
Beyond  sky  yonder  and  beyond  this  earth  here  ; 

So  great  have  I  become  through  mine  own  greatness. 

The  Hymn  to  Purusha,  X,  90. 

1.  A  thousand  heads  has  Purusha 

A  thousand  eyes,  a  thousand  feet ; 
The  earth  surrounding  on  all  sides, 
He  reached  beyond  ten  fingers'  length. 

2.  All  this  vast  world  is  Purusha, 

Both  what  has  been,  and  what  will  be  ; 

He  ruleth  all  who  deathless  are 

Through  the  all-potent  sacrifice.  ; 

3.  As  great  as  this  is  Purusha, 

Yet  greater  still  his  greatness  is  ; 
One-fourth  of  him  is  all  this  world. 
Three-fourths  th'  immortal  in  the  heaven. 

4.  Three-fourths  ascended  up  on  high, 
The  other  fourth  developed  here  ; 
He  spread  himself  o'er  all  that  is. 
What  lives  by  food  and  what  does  not. 

5.  From  Purusha  was  born  Viraj, 
And  from  Viraj  too  Purusha. 
As  soon  as  Purusha  was  born, 

He  reached  beyond  earth  everywhere. 

6.  With  Purusha  as  off' ring  when 
The  gods  prepared  a  sacrifice. 
Spring  was  the  sacrificial  grease, 
Summer  the  fire-wood.  Autumn  drink. 

7.  The  gods  as  off' ring  on  the  straw 
Sprinkled  the  first-born  Purusha  ; 
With  him  the  gods  made  sacrifice. 
The  Rishis  and  the  Sadhayas. 


30  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

8.  From  him  as  whole  burnt  offering 
Dripped  off  the  sacrificial  fat ; 
Therefrom  were  made  fowls  of  the  air, 
And  animals  both  wild  and  tame. 

9.  From  him  as  whole  burnt  offering 
Rik-verses  rose  and  Sama-hymns  ; 
The  poems,  too,  were  born  of  him. 
Of  him  the  sacrificial  songs. 

10.  Horses  sprang  from  him  and  all  beasts 
Which  have  oh  both  jaws  cutting  teeth  ; 
Of  him  the  cattle  Avere  produced, 

Of  him  were  born  both  goats  and  sheep. 

1 1 .  When  they  dismembered  Purusha, 

In  what  ways  was  he  then  transformed  ? 
What  did  his  mouth  and  arms  become  ? 
And  what  his  thighs  and  his  two  feet  ? 

12.  His  mouth  became  the  Bnihmana, 
And  his  two  arms  the  Ksatriya  ; 
His  thighs  became  the  Vaigya-class, 
From  his  two  feet  the  Q'tdra  came. 

13.  The  moon  was  gendered  from  his  mind, 
And  from  his  eye  the  sun  was  born  ; 
Indra  and  Agni  from  his  mouth. 
And  from  his  breath  the  wind  was  born. 

14.  Born  of  his  navel  was  the  air ; 
The  sky  was  from  his  head  brought  forth, 
Earth  from  his  feet,  and  from  his  ear 
The  quarters  ;  so  the  worlds  were  made. 

15.  Seven  sticks  confined  the  altar-fire. 
Thrice  seven  sticks  as  fuel  served  ; 
The  gods  prepared  the  sacrifice. 
And  bound  as  victim  Purusha. 


S 


16.   With  sacrifice- the  gods  made  sacrifices, 
These  sacred  usages  were  thus  primeval ; 
The  gods,  the  mighty  ones,  attained  to  heaven, 
Which  they  of  old  inhabit  as  the  Sadhyas. 


THE  GROWTH   OF   THE  MONISTIC  CONCEPTION.       3 1 

The  contents  of  these  hymns,  so  far  as  they  are  of  philosophic 
import,  may  be  summarized  as  follows  : 

( I )  Philosophy  with  the  Vedic  Aryans  as  with  the  Greeks  was 
born  as  'the  child  of  wonder.'  Questions  emerged.  What  was 
the  origin  of  things  (X,  1 29,  6)  ?  What  existed  in  the  beginning 
(X,  129,  i)?  What  was  the  material  out  of  which  the  world 
was  made  (X,  81,  4)?  What  was  the  standing-place  of  creation 
(X,  81,  2)?  Was  the  world  created  or  not  (X,  129,  7)?  Who 
is  the  God  who  is  worthy  of  sacrifice  (X,  129,  2-9)?  When 
these  questions  were  asked,  there  was  no  separation  between 
philosophy,  the  search  for  natural  causes,  and  theology,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gods,  for  the  gods  as  deified  natural  forces  fell  within 
the  sphere  of  nature.  Thus  the  Vedic  thinkers  were  concerned 
at  once  with  the  origin  of  the  gods  (devdndin  jdnain,  X,  72,  i) 
after  the  manner  of  the  Theogony  of  Hesiod,  and  with  the  origin 
of  things  {jdtavidyd,  X,  71,  ii)  after  the  manner  of  the  early 
Ionic  School.  In  other  words,  the  philosophy  of  the  Rig- Veda 
was  a  cosmology  described  in  terms  partly  mythological  and 
partly  philosophical.  The  following  points  of  contact  with  Greek 
Philosophy  may  be  noticed  in  passing.  The  place  of  Kdvia 
'  love '  in  the  Creation-hymn  (X,  1 29,  4)  reminds  us  of  ip(07 
in  the  Theogony  (v.  120)  of  Hesiod.  The  use  of  z'ana  'forest' 
and  vrJtsa  '  tree  '  with  reference  to  matter  as  the  building  material 
of  the  universe  (X,  81,  4)  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  the  Greek 
u?:rj.  The  conception,  too,  of  the  original  element  as  water  (vid. 
X,  125,  7;  72,  6-7  ;  121,  7-9;  190,  2;  129,  I,  3)  reminds  one 
of  the  theoiy  of  Thales  and  also  of  the  similar  view  of  the  He- 
brews.^ Aditi,  '  the  free,'  '  the  boundless,'  '  the  infinite,'  as  a 
name  for  the  primeval  matter  (X,  72,  4-5)  is  not  unlike  the 
dnecpov  of  Anaximander.  The  most  interesting  parallel,  how- 
ever, is  between  the  Indian  sat  and  asat,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Greek  to  6v  and  rb  [jltj  ov  on  the  other.  The  neuter  participle 
sat,  from  as  to  be,  is  etymologically  the  same  as  oV.  In  these 
Vedic  hymns,  there  is  no  absolute  antithesis  between  being  and 
non-being  as  there  is  with  the  Eleatics  and  with  Plato  ;  for  being 
is  said  to  be  born  of  non-being  (X,  72,  2-3)  and  the  bond  or  root 
»Cf.  Amos  VII,  4,  Ex.  XX,  4,  Gen.  I,  2,  Ps.  XXIV,  2. 


32  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

of  being  is  discovered  in  non-being  (X,  129,4).  The  theory 
impHed  is  not  unlike  the  dynamic  view  of  Aristotle,  according  to 
which  non-being  or  matter  is  the  promise  and  potentiality  of 
being  or  form/ 

(2)  The  origin  of  the  world  ^  was  conceived  in  three  ways  :  as 
a  process  of  architecture,  as  a  process  of  generation,  and  as  a  proc- 
ess of  sacrificial   dismemberment.     These   different  conceptions, 
especially  the    second    and  third,    are    often    combined    in    the 
same    hymn.     The    notion  of  the  world-process    as   a  process 
of  building,  underlies  the  names  Tvashtar,  'the  carpenter  god,' 
Viqvakarman,  '  the  all-worker,'  and  Dhatar  and  Vidhatar,   '  the 
ordainer,'  '  the  creator.'     It  also  underlies  the  question  (X,  81,  4) 
from  what  material  {vaiia,  vrksa,  olrj)  the  world  conceived  as  a 
house  to  be  built  was  hewn.     Closely  connected  with  this  is  the 
conception  of  the  world  as  the  work  of  a  creative  smith  who 
forges  or  welds  together  heaven  and  earth  (X,    81,   3  ;  72,    2). 
In  these  representations  we  have  the  germs  of  the  '  design  '  argu- 
ment in  its  crudest  form.     But  the  dominant  conception  of  the 
world-process  is  as  a  process  of  generation.     Thus  whatever  is 
{sat,  X,  72,  3)  is  born,  including  heaven  and  earth  (X,  121,  9), 
sun  and  moon  (X,  90,  13),  the  four   Vedas  (X,  90,  9),  law   and 
truth  (X,  190,  i),  the  animals  (X,  90,    10),  the  gods  (X,  72,  i, 
5),  original  matter  conceived  as  the  infinite  (X,  72,  4,  Aditi  = 
(XTzzipov)  and  as  the  primeval  watery  chaos  (X,  121,  9  ;    190,  i  ; 
90,  5),  nay,  the  One  Reality  itself  in  its  empirical  development  as 
Tad  ekam   '  that   one  '  (X,    90,    3),  Hiranyagarbha  '  the  golden 
germ'    (X,    121,  i),   Sanivatsara   'the  creative  year'  (X,    190, 
2),  Daksha,  '  creative  force  '  (X,  72,  4),  Vac,  'the  creative  word  ' 
(X,  125,  7),  and  PiirusJia,    'the  cosmic  man'  (X,   90,  5).     The 
third  conception  of  creation  as  a  process  of  sacrificial  dismember- 
ment is  found   especially  in  two  hymns.      In  the  first,   namely, 
X,  81,  Vigvakarman,  the  apotheosis  of  the  energy  of  nature,  is 
represented  as  a  sacrificial  priest  (hotar,  v,  i)  who  in  creating  the 
world  continually  offers  up  earth  and  heaven  (v,  6),  /.  e.,  his  own 

1  Such  points  of  contact  are  not  evidences  of  borrowing.     They  belong  rather  to  the 
category  of  '  developmental  coincidences.' 

2  Cf.  Wallis,  Cosmology  of  the  Rig-  Veda,  p.  89. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  THE  MONISTIC  CONCEPTION.       33 

body  (v,  5)  as  the  totality  of  things.  This  conception  is  ex- 
pressed still  more  clearly  in  X,  90,  where  Purusha,  '  the  cosmic 
man,'  is  represented  as  dismembered  and  offered  up  by  the  devas 
(personified  forces  of  nature),  from  which  sacrificial  dismember- 
ment all  things  derive  their  being.^  Closely  related  to  this  is  the 
view  of  creation  as  the  result  of  Tapas  '  heat,'  '  austerity,'  '  creative 
fervour'  (X,  129,  3;  190,  i).  As  Deussen  remarks:  "Tapas 
und  Opfer,  diese  beiden  hochsten  Bethatigungen  menschlicher 
Kraft,  haben  ihr  Vorbild  in  dem  Verhalten  Gottes  bei  der 
Weltschopfung."  ^  All  three  views  of  the  creative  process  were 
suggested  by  experience.  The  Vedic  Aryans  built  houses  of 
wood  ;  they  begat  children  ;  and  they  dismembered  animals  in 
sacrifice.  And  so  they  conceived  creation  after  the  analogy  of 
architecture,  generation  and  sacrificial  dismemberment. 

(3)  An  original  primciple  self-existent,  unitary  and  all-com- 
prehensive was  postulated  (Tad  Ekam,  'that  one,'  X,  129,  2; 
Purusha,  'the  cosmic  man,'  X,  90,  and  Daksha,  'creative  force,' 
X,  72,  4).  From  this  original  principle  was  produced  the  chaos 
of  matter  ^  conceived  as  aditi  '  the  infinite '  or  as  salilam,  dpas, 
viraj,  '  the  primeval  waters.'^  Then  as  the  third  step  in  the  proc- 
ess, the  first  principle  itself  underwent  an  empirical  development 
and  was  born  of  the  matter  which  had  been  produced  by  itself. 
This  explains  the  paradoxical  statements  : 

'  From  Aditi  arose  Daksha 
Again  from  Daksha  Aditi, 
Born  first  of  all  is  Aditi, 
Who,  Daksha,  thine  own  daughter  is'    (X,  72,  4-5). 

And  again, 

*  From  Purusha  was  born  Viraj, 
And  from  Viraj  too  Purusha'    (X,  90,  5). 

Thus  there  were  three  moments  in  the  drama  of  creation  :  {a) 

^  The  source  of  this  conception  is  clearly  to  be  found  in  the  creative  efficacy  which 
was  gradually  imputed  to  the  sacrifice. 

*  Geschichte,  S.  1 36. 

3Cf.  Hesiod  Theogony,  v,  115. 

*  Compare  the  three  parallel  terms  in  Gen.  I,  2,  viz.,  tbhii  wa  bhohii,  tehom  and 
hammayim. 


34  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  Original  Being  (transcendent),  {b)  the  world  of  chaotic,  indis- 
crete matter,  the  primeval  abyss,  and  {c)  the  Original  Being 
(phenomenal)  as  the  First-born  and  Ruler  of  all  things.^ 

(4)  Let  us  glance  briefly  at  the  place  and  functions  which  now 
remain  to  the  devas.  They  are  not  banished,  neither  do  they 
lose  their  personification  entirely.  They  are  simply  brought  into  a 
relation  of  subordination  to  the  One  Reality  as  effects  of  the  One 
Cause  (X,  129,6;  125,  1-2;  90,  13),  as  individual  forces  of  the  one 
all-Comprehensive  Force  (X,  125,  3  ;  90,  6-7  ;  72,  6),  as  sharers 
in  the  One  Life  (X,  121,  7),  and  as  obedient  subjects  (X,  121,  2, 
8  ;  90,  2)  and  ministers  (X,  72,  7  ;  81,  4)  of  the  One  Lord.  In 
their  capacity  as  subjects  and  ministers  of  a  Supreme  Lord  the 
devas  are  not  unlike  the  malachim  '  angels '  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.^ 

(5)  Thus  the  tendency  of  the  later  Vedic  hymns  is  toward 
unity,  but  this  unity  is  described  sometimes  in  the  terms  of  mono- 
theism and  sometimes  in  the  terms  of  monism.  The  One  Re- 
ality when  conceived  monotheistically  is  called  £ka  Deva  '  the 
One  God  '  (X,  8 1 ,  3  ;  121,8),  Eka  Pati  '  the  One  Lord  '  (X,  121, 
i)  and  Eka  Rdjd  'the  One  King'  (X,  121,  3).  These  epithets 
have  a  Semitic  ring.  They  remind  us  of  the  Hebrew  Psalms,  in 
which  God,  Lord,  and  King  are  frequent  names  of  Deity.  The 
characters  essential  to  a  consistent  monotheism  are  the  unity,  the 
personality,  the  sovereignty,  the  transcendence  and  the  holiness 
(=  righteousness)  of  God.  The  first  three  seem  to  be  found  in  the 
Hiranyagarbha-Prajdpati\iymvL  (X,  I2i);  and  the  fourth,  pos- 
sibly in  the  monistic  hymn  to  Purusha  (X,  90),  according  to  which 
only  one-fourth  of  Purusha  was  converted  into  phenomenal  ex- 
istence, while  the  other  three-fourths  remained,  as  originally, 
"immortal  in  the  heaven"  (v.  3).  For  the  idea  of  the  holiness 
of  God  we  have  to  go  back  to  the  august  and  commanding  figure 
of  Varuna  (cf.  V,  85),  "the  King  of  all"  (v.  i),  who  awakens 
in  his  worshippers  the  consciousness  of  sin  (vv.  7-8)  ;  who  up- 
holds moral  order  {rtani)  and  punishes  its  breach.  Thus  we 
have  in  the  Rig-Veda  the  scattered  germs  of  an  ethical  mono- 

iVid.  Deussen,  Op.  cit.,  S.  57. 

2Cf.  Ps.  CIV,  4  :  'Who  maketh  his  angels  winds,  his  ministers  a  flaming  fire.' 


THE   GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC   CONCEPTION.      35 

theism.  In  two  ways  such  a  monotheism  might  have  been  re- 
ahzed.  A  single  Aryan  tribe  or  community  through  the  teach- 
ing of  Rishis,  having  the  ethical  earnestness  of  Hebrew  prophets, 
might  have  maintained  and  developed  the  ethical  conception  of 
Varuna,  and  so  outstripped  all  the  rest  in  zeal  for  righteousness. 
Hence  there  might  have  arisen  a  rivalry  between  Varuna  and 
the  Devas,  just  as  between  Jahweh  and  the  Baalim,  with  final 
victory  for  Varuna.  This,  as  we  know  from  Hebrew  history, 
would  have  been  a  practical  mode  of  genesis  for  an  ethical  sys- 
tem. How  far  this  was  from  accomplishment  in  the  period  of 
the  Rig- Veda  is  manifest  from  the  words  of  Deussen,  himself  an 
ardent  admirer  of  things  Indian,  to  the  effect  that  the  ethical  ele- 
ment, in  which  the  real  worth  of  a  religion  lies,  falls  in  the  Rig- 
Veda  surprisingly  into  the  shade.^  Or,  again,  a  new  god  (like 
Prajapati,  the  lord  of  all  creatures)  might  have  been  discovered 
in  answer  to  the  question  '  What  God  shall  we  adore  with  sacri- 
fice ?'  and  then  conceived  as  'the  One  God  above  the  gods,'  the 
older  devas  or  gods  being  degraded  to  the  position  of  '  minister- 
ing angels.'  Such  a  movement  towards  monotheism  is  actually 
disclosed  in  the  Prajapati-hymn.  It  represents  the  highest 
reach  of  the  Vedic  striving  towards  monotheism. 

But  the  dominant  trend  of  Vedic  thought  was  towards  a 
monistic  conception  of  things.  Even  where,  as  in  the  Prajapati- 
hymn,  One  God  is  mentioned  as  above  all  gods,  we  are  not  abso- 
lutely certain  that  it  is  anything  more  than  a  nominal  monotheism. 
The  Eka  Deva  may  be  only  a  theological  name  for  the  totality  of 
nature  like  the  '  Dcus  '  of  Spinoza.  According  to  the  monistic 
conception  of  things  the  one  reality  was  viewed  most  consistently 
as  neuter  and  impersonal.  Tad  Ekam,  ro  ev,  '  that  one'  (X,  129, 
2).  But  it  also  bore  other  names,  which  are  less  impersonal, 
such  as  PimisJia  (X,  90). 

(6)  It  is  to  be  noted  finally  that  Bralimanaspati,  the  apotheosis 
of  the  power  of  the  brahman  '  hymn  or  prayer,'  and  Vac,  the 
apotheosis  of  speech  as  incarnate  in  the  Vedic  words,  are  both 
made  to  refer  to  the  ultimate  reality.  Vac  declares  her  own 
greatness  (X,  125)  quite  in  the  manner  in  which  Sophia  {Hoch- 

1  Op.  at.,  S.  82. 


36  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

mdh,  Prov.  VIII)  declares  hers.  Vac,  like  Brahmanaspati  and 
Purusha,  is  an  anticipation  of  the  later  Brahman,  the  One  Reality, 
just  as  Hochnidh  '  the  Divine  Wisdom  '  is  an  anticipation  of  the 
Logos  of  the  New  Testament. 

B. 

The  grozvth  of  the  monistic  conception  in  the  period  of  the  Yajur- 
Veda  and  in  the  region  of  Madhyadega. 

Each  of  the  four  Vedas,  when  used  in  the  wider  sense,  has 
three  portions  :  {a)  the  Samhitd  or  collection  of  hymns,  {B)  the 
Brdhmana  or  collection  of  '  priestly  discourses,'  which  explain 
the  practical  use  of  the  hymns  in  connection  with  the  various 
sacrifices,  and  {c)  the  Stitra,  a  brief  and  systematic  exposition  of 
the  content  of  the  Brdhmana  after  the  manner  of  a  modern  cate- 
chism. Further,  each  Brdhmana  as  a  rule  contains  three  subdi- 
visions :  {a)  the  Brdhmana  in  the  narrow  sense,  consisting  largely 
of  ceremonial  prescriptions,  {b)  the  Aranyaka  or  '  iorest-treatise  '  at 
the  end  of  a  Brdhmana,  in  which  the  sacrificial  cult  is  spiritualized, 
and  {c)  the  Upanisad  or  '  mystic  doctrine '  at  the  end  of  the 
Aranyaka.  These  divisions  may  be  illustrated  from  the  famous 
CatapatJia  Brdhmana,  which  contains  fourteen  books,  of  which 
the  first  thirteen  make  up  the  Brdhmana  in  the  narrow  sense,  and 
the  fourteenth  the  Aranyaka,  while  the  last  six  chapters  of  the 
fourteenth  book  compose  the  Upanisad  known  as  the  Brhaddr- 
anyaka  Upanisad.  There  is  another  analysis  of  the  contents  of 
a  Brdhmana,  as  given  by  Madhusudana  Safasvati,  the  author  of 
the  Prasthdna-Bheda,^  into  vidhi,  *  prescription,'  artJiavdda  '  expo- 
sition,' exegetical,  mythological,  dogmatical,  etc.,  and  lastly 
Vcddnta  '  the  end  of  the  Veda,'  both  as  conclusion  of  the  Veda, 
since  the  Upanisads  represent  the  final  stages  of  Vedic  literature, 
and  as  aiin  of  the  Veda,  since  the  Upanisads  contain  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  Vedas.^  The  period  of  the  Yajnr-  Ju'da  (also  called 
the  Brdhmana  period)  I  understand  to  include  whatever  literature 

'  Vid.  Deussen,  Geschichte,  S.  47-50. 

2  With  the  ambiguity  of  the  word  Vedanta  we  may  compare  the  similar  ambiguity 
in  the  use  of  the  Metaphysics  [ja  /nera  ra  (pvaiKa )  of  Aristotle,  as  following  the  Physics 
both  in  order  and  in  theme. 


THE  GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC  CONCEPTION.       Z7 

falls  between  the  Rig-Veda  Samliitd  and  the  Upanisads,  {.  e.,  the 
Yajur-  Veda  Sainhiid,  the  Atharva-  Veda  SainJutd  and  the  Brdh- 
vianas  in  the  narrow  sense. 

First  to  be  noticed  is  the  cleft  between  the  period  of  the  hymns 
of  the  Rig-  Veda,  and  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  oldest 
BrdJnnanas.  When  the  curtain  of  history  rises  for  the  first  time 
in  India,  we  see  the  Aryans  (probably  in  the  second  millennium, 
B.  C.)  tending  their  flocks,  fighting  their  battles,  and  singing 
their  hymns  in  the  land  of  the  five  rivers.  The  great  monument 
of  this  period  is  the  Rig-  Veda  Samhitd.  Then  there  follows  a 
period  of  obscurity,  of  migration  and  conflict.  The  centre  of 
Aryan  life  and  thought  shifts  from  the  Panjab  to  the  Madhyade<;a, 
the  region  of  the  upper  Ganges  and  Jamna.  The  great  monument 
of  the  second  period,  which  I  have  called  the  period  of  the  Yajiir- 
Veda,  is  the  Brdlimana  literature.  In  this  period  the  hymn-col- 
lections of  the  Yajiir-  Veda  and  Atharva-  Veda  were  made  and 
probably  the  canon  of  the  Rig-  Veda  Samhitd  was  not  closed  be- 
fore this  time.  The  Bi'dhnianas  as  a  literature  may  be  briefly 
characterized.  They  represent  the  earliest  Indo-European  prose. 
They  pre -suppose  the  Vedic  hymns.  As  ritualistic  theological 
and  philosophical  appendices  to  the  Vedic  hymns  they  bear  a 
relation  to  them  similar  to  that  borne  by  the  Talmudical  litera- 
ture to  the  Old  Testament.  The  Brdhnianas  are,  as  it  were,  a 
bridge  between  the  Vedic  hymns  and  the  Upanisads.  We  see  in 
them  symbolism  gone  mad.  Everything  is  equated  with  every- 
thing else.  They  illustrate  the  fact  that  ritualism  thrives  on 
symbolism.  Deussen  warns  us  against  taking  their  (apparently) 
philosophical  ideas  too  seriously.^  The  warning  is  needed. 
Still  the  wild  and  incoherent  identifications  of  the  Brdhnianas 
indicate,  at  least,  the  trend  and  general  direction  of  Indian  specu- 
lation. 

Let  us  now  address  ourselves  to  the  philosophy  of  the  period, 
especially  as  revealed  in  the  pages  of  the  (^atapatJia  Brdhniana ; 
for,  as  Oldenberg  says,  "  In  none  of  the  Vedic  texts  can  we  trace 
the  genesis  of  the  conception  of  the  unity  in  all  that  is,  from  the 
first  dim  indications  of  this  thought  until  it  attains  a  steady  bril- 

1  Op.  cit.,  S.  174. 


38  A    STUDY  OF    INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

liancy,  as  clearly  as  in  that  work,  which  next  to  the  hymns  of 
the  Rig- Veda,  deserves  to  be  regarded  as  the  most  significant  in 
the  whole  range  of  Vedic  literature,  the  '  Brdhnmna  of  the  Inin- 
dred  paths.'  "  ^  Here  two  things  are  important  for  our  purpose, 
first,  to  see  how  far  the  philosophical  ideas  already  discovered  in 
the  Ri^--  Veda  Saviliitd  suffer  modification  or  development,  and 
secondly,  to  summarize  the  steps  in  the  genesis  of  the  meaning 
of  Brahman  as  the  One  Reality. 

Prajapati,  who  just  emerges  above  the  horizon  in  the  Ri^- Veda 
Samlutd  is  in  the  zenith  of  his  power  in  the  Brdhinanas.  To 
illustrate  at  once  the  mania  for  identification  which  characterizes 
the  Brdhinanas,  and  the  nature  of  Prajapati  "  the  great  God  " 
{inahdn  Deva,  Cat  Br.,  VI,  i,  3,  16)  of  this  period,  I  submit  the 
following  list  of  identifications  from  the  (^at.  Br.  Prajapati  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  sacrifice  (I,  5,  2,  17),  the  year  (I,  2,  5,  12),  every- 
thing (I,  3,  5,  10),  speech  {I'dc,  I,  6,  3,  27),  the  brahman  of  the 
gods  (I,  7,  4,  21),  the  earth  (II,  i,  4,  13),  Agni  (II,  3,  3,  18), 
mind  (IV,  i,  i,  22),  truth  (IV,  2,  i,  26),  the  self  [dtman)  {IV , 
6,  I,  i),  heaven  and  earth  (V,  i,  5,  26),  father  and  mother  (Id.), 
soma  (Id.),  the  great  god  (VI,  i,  3,  16),  Hiranyagarbha  {Yl,  2,  2, 
5),  Ka  (Id.),  the  worlds  and  the  quarters  (VI,  3,  i,  1 1),  the  whole 
brdlimaniyW,  3,  i,  42),  and  Vigvakarman  (IX,  4,  i,  12).  I  think 
we  can  detect  a  certain  method  in  this  madness  of  identification. 
Prajapati,  as  the  lord  of  generation  and  becoming,  the  apotheosis 
of  nature,  is  clearly  a  mythological  name  for  the  totality  of  things 
viewed  as  the  One  Reality.  And  so  Prajapati  may  be  identified 
with  'everything'  in  general  after  the  manner  of  Purusha  (RV., 
X,  90,  2),  or  with  various  individual  things  of  fundamental  cos- 
mic import  already  mentioned  in  the  RV.,  such  as  sacrifice  (cf, 
RV.,  X,  90,  15),  the  yediV  {Sanivatsara,  cf  RV.,  X,  190,  2); 
speech  {vac,  RV.,  X,  125),  the  Great  God  (cf  the  Eka  Deva  of 
RV.,  X,  121),  Hiranyagarblia  and /v^:  (RV.,  X,  121),  and  Vigva- 
karman (RV.,  X,  81).  Other  identifications  such  as  'heaven  and 
earth,'  *  father  and  mother,'  etc.,  simply  indicate  Prajapati's  char- 
acter as  the  substance  and  support  of  all  things.  The  identifica- 
tion of  Prajapati  with  Atiiian  (^at.  Br.,  IV,  6,  i,  i)  and  with  the 

1  Buddha,  p.  25. 


THE   GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC   CONCEPTION.      39 

whole  Brahman  (VII,  3,  i,  42)  is  indicative  of  the  growing  in- 
fluence of  what  finally  became  the  BraJimaii-Atuian  doctrine  of 
the  Upanisads.  The  cosmic  character  of  Prajapati  must  not  be 
overlooked.  He  is  especially  identified  with  the  year  (Samvat- 
sara),  the  ever-recurring  cycle  of  the  birth  and  decay  of  nature. 
For  a  similar  representation  on  the  part  of  a  Christian  poet,  com- 
pare the  lines  in  Thomson's  Hymn  to  the  Seasons  : 

"  These  as  they  change,  Almighty  Father,  these 
Are  but  the  varied  God  ;  the  rolling  year 
Is  full  of  Thee." 

As  the  Creative  Year  Father  Prajapati  loses  his  strength 
through  much  production  and  so  is  relaxed  (in  winter).  He 
therefore  has  to  be  renewed  through  sacrifice  which  the  gods 
(especially  Agni,  the  returning  fire  and  heat  of  Spring)  offer 
through  the  renewed  activity  of  the  forces  of.  nature.  Hence 
Prajapati  is  at  once  the  father  and  the  son  of  Agni,  the  father 
and  the  son  of  the  devas.  Prajapati  is  the  original  principle.  He 
alone  was  here  (or  all  this)  in  the  beginning,  ^at.  Br.,  II,  2,  4, 
I  ;  II,  5,  I,  I  ;  VI,  I,  3,  I.  His  primal  impulse  is  desire  of  off- 
spring.^ Tapas  ('  austerity,'  *  creative  fervour  ')  and  sacrifice  are 
the  creative  means.  He  himself  is  at  once  sacrificial  priest 
(through  the  devas  his  own  forces)  and  sacrificial  victim.  Thus 
he  produces  all  things,  devas  and  asuras  (the  bright  and  dark 
forces  of  nature).  Brahman,  Ksatra  and  Vig,  yea  all  living  crea- 
tures. He  is  both  the  "  defined  and  the  undefined,  the  limited 
and  the  unlimited." 

From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  there  is  no  great  advance  as  yet 
beyond  the  incipient  philosophical  doctrine  of  the  Vedic  hymns. 
What  we  find  is  simply  a  change  of  emphasis.  The  Vedic 
H ir any  agar bha,  Vigvakarman,  Vac,  Samvatsara,  Pnrusa,  are  all 
mentioned,  but  they  fall  far  behind  Prajapati  in  importance. 
They,  so  to  speak,  lose  their  being  in  his,  and  find  it  again  only 
through  identification  with  him.  Prajapati  is  enriched  with  the 
attributes  of  all  of  them  and  so  appears  as  the  one  supreme  be- 
ing.    Nor  is  the  doctrine  of  the  gods  essentially   different  from 

iCf.  RV.,  X,  129,  4. 


40  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

what  we  have  found  in  the  philosophical  hymns  of  the  Rig-Veda. 
As  regards  their  cosmic  character,  the  devas  are  viewed  as  the 
members  and  senses  of  the  all-embracing  world-man  (^at.  Br., 
Ill,  2,  2,  13  ;  VII,  I,  2,  7).  Varuna,  as  the  lord  of  law  [dJiar- 
inapati,  V,  3,  3,  9),  is  still  the  holy  god.  Whoso  commits 
adultery  sins  against  Varuna  (II,  5,  2,  20)  and  falls  into  his 
"  noose."  The  mysticism  of  the  Brdlnnanas  is  justified  by  the 
oft-repeated  declaration  that  "  the  gods  love  the  mystic."  There 
are  "two  kinds  of  gods,"  divine  and  human.  "The  gods,  for- 
sooth are  the  gods ;  and  the  learned  Brahmans  versed  in  sacred 
lore  are  the  human  gods  "  (IV,  3,  4,  4).  Coming  now  to  the 
doctrine  of  sacrifice,  we  notice  that  it  has  at  once  a  cosmic  and 
a  human  character.  The  sacrificial  activity  of  the  priests  finds 
its  antitype  and  justification  in  the  sacrificial  activity  of  the  gods. 
As  in  the  philosophical  hymns  of  the  Rig-Veda,  so  here  also  the 
world-process  is  viewed  as  an  eternal  sacrifice,  of  which  the  one 
all-embracing  reality  (Prajapati,  X,  2,  2,  i,  Purusha,  III,  5,  3,  i, 
and  later  Brahman,  XIII,  7,  i,  i)  is  the  victim.  Yajna  'sacri- 
fice '  is  a  kind  of  apotheosis  of  the  eternal  process  of  becoming 
after  the  manner  of  the  doctrine  of  Heraclitus.  Gods,  men,  and 
pitris,  all  exist  because  of  the  sacrifice.  The  gods  obtained  their 
position  and  authority  through  sacrifice.  Through  it,  too,  men 
are  delivered  from  "Varuna's  noose."  Hence  the  sacrifice  is 
"the  most  excellent  work"  (I,  7,  i,  5),  "the  great  inspirer  of 
devotion"  (III,  5,  3,  12),  a  thing  in  its  real  nature  "invisible" 
(III,  I,  3,  25),  "the  self  {dtman)  of  the  gods"  (VIII,  6,  i,  10). 
The  doctrine  of  the  all-sufficiency  of  the  sacrifice  reached  its 
climax  in  the  Bt'dlwianas, 

A  word  or  two  may  be  added  with  reference  to  the  doctrine, 
in  this  period,  of  a  primeval  matter.  It  does  not  differ  essen- 
tially from  that  which  we  have  already  found  in  the  Rig-Veda. 
Thus  in  the  Taitt.  SaiiiJi.  (V,  6,  4,  2  and  VII,  i,  5,  i)  we  read 
that  "  water  forsooth  was  here  (or  all  this)  in  the  beginning,  a 
chaotic  mass," ^  and  that  "Prajapati  as  wind ^  moved  upon  it." 
In  ^at.  Br.,  XI,  1,6,  i,  there  is  also  a  mention  of  the  primeval 
watery  chaos,   from   which    Prajapati   is   said   to  have  sprung, 

^  Salilam,  cf.  RV.,  X,  1 29,  3.  2  yayn,  cf.  rilah,  Gen.  I,  2. 


THE   GROWTH  OF   THE  MONISTIC   CONCEPTION.      4 1 

Deussen  sees  in  this  last  passage  an  attempt  to  dethrone  Pra- 
japati  by  allowing  him  only  a  relative  and  phenomenal  existence. 
In  VI,  I,  I  we  have  a  further  description  of  the  primeval  matter 
as  non-being*  in  the  words  :  "  In  the  beginning  non-being  was 
here  (or  all  this)." 

So  much  then  with  reference  to  the  philosophico-religious 
ideas  of  the  Brdhmaiias  in  their  relation  to  the  kindred  ideas  of 
the  Vedic  hymns.  It  only  remains  now  to  summarize  briefly 
the  steps  in  the  genesis  of  the  meaning  of  Brahman  as  the  One 
Reality.  The  contribution  of  the  Vedic  hymns  to  the  genesis  of 
this  meaning  consists  {a)  in  the  development  of  the  notion  of  the 
power  and  efficacy  of  Brahman  '  the  sacrificial  formula,'  and  {U) 
in  the  apotheosis  of  this  notion  under  the  name  of  BrdJinianaspdti. 
In  the  period  of  the  Brdlnnanas,  Brahman,  as  already  pointed 
out,  has  the  meanings  :  [a)  Word  objective,  as  hymn,  formula, 
text,  {b)  word  subjective,  as  sacred  wisdom  and  theology  and  (c) 
word  immanent,  as  both  the  power  which  energizes  in  the  world 
and  the  world  as  the  manifestation  of  such  power.  The  third 
meaning  of  Brahman  came  naturally,  since  Brahman  finally  took 
tha  place  of  Purusha  and  Prajapati  and  so  fell  heir  to  their  con- 
notation. 

The  transition  from  meanings  («)  and  (b)  to  meaning  (c)  may 
be  illustrated  by  means  of  several  passages  from  the  CatapatJia 
Brdhviana.  In  VI,  i,  i,  8-10  Prajapati  isj  represented  as  creat- 
ing first  of  all  Brahman,  the  Triple  Science  (/.  c,  the  three  Vedas 
Rik,  Santa  and  Yajns,  viewed  as  one  doctrine).  This  became  a 
foundation  for  further  creative  activity.  Next  from  Vac  (=  Brah- 
man, Veda)  as  a  standing  place  he  created  the  waters,  into  which 
finally  along  with  the  Triple  Science  he  entered  as  the  world-egg. 
From  this  again  Brahman  was  produced  empirically  as  the  first- 
born of  this  all.  This  is  but  a  development  of  ideas  already  found  in 
the  Rig-Veda,  especially  X,  1 29.  A  similar  conception  is  found 
in  the  oft  repeated  words  of  VII,  4,  i,  14,  Brahvia  jajndnain  pra- 
tlianiam pjirastdt,  'The  Brahman  first  born  in  front,'  according  to 
which  Brahman  is  described  under  the  figure  of  the  sun,  which  is 
born  day  by  day  in  the  east.    Thus  far  Prajapati  and  Brahman  have 

^  Asat,  cf.  RV.,  X,  129,  I,  4. 


42  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

stood  more  or  less  on  a  level.  Brahman  has  even  been  described 
as  dependent  upon  Prajapati.  But  in  the  later  books  of  the  (^at. 
Br.  Prajapati  decreases  and  Brahman  increases.  This  gradual 
growth  of  Brahman  into  the  supreme  principle  is  indicated  by 
such  texts  as  VIII,  4,  i,  3,  'The  Brahman  is  the  highest  of 
gods' — 'Heaven  and  earth  are  upheld  by  the  Brahman';  X,  3, 
5,  10  'This  is  the  greatest  Brahman' — 'This  Brahman  has 
nothing  before  it  and  nothing  after  it ';  XI,  2,  3,  i  '  Brahman  for- 
sooth was  this  world  in  the  beginning.'  These  passages  bring  us 
finally  to  the  highest  conception  of  Brahman  as  Svayamblm,  the 
Self-Existent  (X,  6,  5,  9  ;  XIII,  7,  i,  i),  where  we  reach  the 
position  of  the  Upanishads. 

The  exaltation  of  Brahman  as  the  one  immanent  and  all- 
embracing  reality  suggests  the  question,  not  why  the  word 
'  brahman '  received  this  meaning,  but  why  after  having  once  re- 
ceived it,  the  meaning  has  always  been  retained.  There  have 
been  other  names  for  the  ultimate  reality,  c.  g.,  in  the  Rig-Veda 
Piirusa,  Vac,  Prajapati,  and  in  the  Atharva-Veda  Ktlla  '  Time,' 
Skambha  'support,'  Prdna  'spirit,'  etc.  These  have  emerged  at 
different  times,  but  have  always  been  superseded,  or  at  least 
remained  secondary.  Brahman,  however,  has  endured  as  the 
supreme  name  of  the  Ultimate  Reality.  Why  ?  It  seems  to  me 
that  there  is  no  other  answer  except  this  that  the  word  '  Brah- 
man '  is  also  the  name  of  the  collective  Brahman  community, 
and  so  Brahman,  as  the  name  of  the  Ultimate  Reality,  had  the 
powerful  support  of  the  priesthood.  The  word  Brahman,  like 
Brahman,  Brdhiiia-Veda  and  Brahmana,  fell  within  that  potent 
circle  of  words  and  ideas  on  which  hang  in  large  measure  the 
civilization  and  thought  of  India. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Doctrine  of  Brahman  in  the  Upanishads, 

A.  Remarks  on  the  Sources. 

The  word  '  Jipanisad'  requires  explanation.  It  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  '  mystic  import,'  '  secret  name,'  '  hidden  sense,'  'secret 
doctrine.'  For  example,  (Jat  Br.,  X,  5,  i,  i,^  'The  mystic  im- 
port of  the  fire -altar  doubtless  is  speech.'  Thus  far  there  is  no  dif- 
ference of  opinion.  The  derivation  of  the  actual  meaning  from  the 
word  '  Jipanisad,'  however,  is  not  so  clear.  Most  modern  schol- 
ars, e.  g.,  Roth,^  Weber,^  Mueller,*  explain  '  Jipanisad'  as  mean- 
ing originally  the  sitting  at  the  feet  of  a  teacher  [upa-ni-sad') 
therefore  'session,'  'seance,'  'Sitzung.'  But,  as  Professor  Max 
Mueller  says,^  no  passage  has  yet  been  found  in  which  the  word 
^  upanisad'  is  used  in  the  sense  of  'session'  or  in  the  sense  of 
pupils  approaching  and  listening  to  their  teacher.  Oldenberg  ^ 
takes  iipanisad  as  a  synomyn  of  iipdsand  '  Verehrung,'  comparing 
upa-ds  with  npa-nisad.  The  reasoning  is  suggestive  but  not  con- 
clusive. The  earliest  as  well  as  most  important  passage  bearing 
on  the  meaning  of  npanisad  is  Cat.  Br.,  IX,  4,  3,  3.  '  He  thus 
makes  the  common  people  below  subject  {jtpanisddui)  to  the 
nobility.'  On  the  basis  of  this  passage  Hopkins"  suggests  that 
the  original  reference  of  the  word  ^npanisad'  was  to  "subsidiary 
works  of  the  ritualistic  Brdhmanasy  This  conjecture  suggests 
another,  which  seems  to  me  to  be  better  supported  by  actual 
usage,  namely,  that  npanisad  had  the  meaning  of  secondary  sense, 
as  opposed  to  primary  sense.  It  is  true  that  the  crucial  passage 
for  the  original  meaning  of  upanisad,  as  cited  above,  does  not 

'  As  translated  by  Eggeling. 

^  Skt.   Worterbuch,  St.  Petersburg. 

^ Indische  Literatiirgesch.,  Berlin,  1S76,  S.  30. 

*  Three  Lectures  on  the  Vedanta  Philosophy,  p.  23. 

^SBE.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  Ixxx-lxxxi. 

6ZDMG.,  1896,  Bd.  50,  S.  457  ft". 

''Religions  0/ India,  pp.  217,  218. 


44  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

in  itself  decide  the  question.  The  meaning  of  upanisddin  '  sub- 
sidiary,' 'subject,'  'secondary,'  suggests  for  the  word  '  iipanisad' 
a  reference  either  to  the  attitude  of  pupils  sitting  at  the  feet  of  a 
teacher,  or  to  literary  works  subsidiary  and  supplementary  to 
other  works,  or  again  to  meanings  subsidary  and  secondary  to 
other  meanings.  The  first  reference  cannot  be  supported  by  any 
quotations,  and  the  second  is  relatively  late.  The  third  alone  is 
supported  by  actual  usage  in  the  earliest  Upanishads.  Thus  in 
the  earliest  passages  in  which  the  word  '  iipanisad '  occurs, 
namely,  at  the  end  of  the  (^dndilya  and  Ydjhavalkya  portions 
respectively  of  the  ^at,  Br.,  the  word  refers  to  unusual  interpre- 
tations of  sacrificial  and  ritualistic  details.  The  yajiis  or  sacrifi- 
cial formula  (X,  3,  5,  12),  the  fire-altar  (X,  5,  i,  i)  and  the  year 
(XII,  2,  2,  23)  had  each  of  them  its  own  iipanisad,  i.  e.,  'esoteric 
meaning'  or  'mystery.'^  This  seems  to  be  the  most  primitive 
meaning  of  '  upanisad.'  But  an  esoteric  meaning,  an  allegorical 
interpretation,  is  distinctly  subsidiary  and  secondary  to  the  pri- 
mary and  natural  sense.  I  would  therefore  take  the  original  mean- 
ing of  upanisad  to  be  neither  '  session,'  nor  '  subsidiary  works  of 
the  ritualistic  BrdJunanas,'  but  rather  the  secondary  and  allego- 
rical as  opposed  to  the  primary  and  natural  sense.  It  is  a  mean- 
ing found  in  a  word  because  put  there  by  speculative  insight.  If 
we  take  upanisad  to  be  '  supplementaiy  sense  '  after  the  analogy 
o{  7ipdkhvdnam,  'supplementary  tale,'  then  npajiisad  vaight  be  ex- 
plained etymologically  as  the  mystic  sense  which  resides  in  [)n- 
sad)  a  word  in  addition  to  [upa)  the  primary  sense.  Such  a 
meaning,  although  secondary  as  opposed  to  the  natural  sense,  is 
by  no  means  secondary  as  regards  importance.  In  the  earliest 
passage  in  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  word  '  iipanisad '  occurs, 
namely,  in  the  Cdndilya  portion  of  the  ^at.  Br.  (X,  3,  5,  12),  we 
read  that  the  '  mystic  import  is  the  essence  of  this  Yaj'us,'  i.  e.,  the 
important  thing  in  a  sacrificial  formula  is  the  allegorical  and 
mystical  sense,  not  the  primary  sense.  All  this  is  in  harmony 
with  the  maxim  of  the  Brdlunana  period  that  '  the  gods  love  the 
mysterious.' 

But  allegory  and  mysticism  are  not  confined  to  the  Upani- 

'  Cf.  Apocal.  loh.,  I,  20,  'the  mystery  of  the  seven  stars.' 


DOCTRINE    OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  45 

shads,  but  are  common  to  the  Brdhmanas  also.  Why  then  is 
the  term  '  tipanisad'  restricted  in  its  appHcation  ?  For  one  thing 
it  is  a  comparatively  late  word,  appearing  for  the  first  time  in 
what  are  properly  the  Upanishad-portions  of  the  (^at.  Br.  Then, 
too  the  word  '  upanisad '  seems  to  have  been  from  the  very  be- 
ginning confined  to  mystical  speculations  of  a  definite  kind, 
namely  those  pertaining  to  the  investigation  of  Brahman.  Thus 
the  earliest  mention  oi  upanisad  {f^ai.  Br.,  X,  3,  5,  12)  occurs  in 
the  same  context  where  Brahman  is  described  (vv.  10,  1 1)  as  the 
'  greatest '  (knowledge  or  reality),  than  which  '  there  is  nothing 
greater.'  And  in  Kena  Up.  32  we  have  the  expression  Bralimi 
Upanisad  'the  mystic  doctrine  of  Brahman.'  Thus  upanisad 
came  to  be  the  standing  term  for  theological  as  opposed  to  sacri- 
ficial mysticism.  The  Indian  interpretation  of  upanisad  as  the 
destruction  of  ignorance  through  the  knowledge  of  Brahman 
may  not  be  so  far  wrong  after  all. 

Allegory  has  ever  furnished  an  apparently  easy  way  of  uniting 
heterogeneous  worlds  of  thought.  Philo  Judzeus  used  it  as  a 
means  of  harmonizing  Mosaism  and  Platonism ;  and  in  recent 
times  it  has  been  employed  by  Pandit  Dayananda  Saraswati, 
founder  of  the  Arya  Samaj,  as  a  means  of  discovering  in  the 
Vedas  the  science  of  the  present  day.  What  then  more  natural 
than  that  men  who  had  been  born  and  bred  in  the  atmosphere  of 
Indian  ritual  should  seek  to  transcend  the  standpoint  of  ritualism 
by  trying  to  discover  a  deeper  meaning  in  the  ritual  itself  In 
other  words,  the  mystics  of  the  Brdliniana  period,  like  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  saw  in  the  sacrificial  ritualism  a 
system  of  types  and  symbols,  by  means  of  which  as  a  ladder 
they  sought  to  climb  up  into  the  sphere  of  eternal  realities. 

The  usage  of  the  word  '  iipanisad '  has  undergone  a  certain 
development.  It  means  first  of  all  secret  name,  secret  sense, 
secret  doctrine,  rahasyani,  ixoav^ptov,  and  in  this  sense  is  found 
in  the  oldest  parts  of  the  oldest  Upanishads  (Brih.,  II,  i,  20, 
Chand.,  I,  i,  10,  I,  13,  4,  Kaush.,  II,  i,  Taitt.,  I,  3,  i.  Ait.  Ar., 
Ill,  I,  I,  I,  III,  2,  5,  i).  It  means,  secondly,  verse  or  section 
containing  the  doctrine  of  Brahman  (Taitt.,  II,  9,  i.  III,  10,  6, 
Chand.,  I,  13,  4,  III,  11,  2-3)  ;  and,  thirdly,  a  collection  of  such 


46  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

doctrines  in  the  form  of  a  dogmatic  text -book  belonging  to  a 
particular  school  or  sect. 

The  number  of  such  dogmatic  text-books  is  large.  Professor 
Weber's  list^  contains  235.  Some  of  these,  however,  may  be 
duplicates.  They  belong  to  different  periods  of  time.  Three 
ways  of  classifying  the  Upanishads  may  be  mentioned.  First, 
on  the  basis  of  their  use  by  ^ankaracar}^a,  the  great  Vedantic 
commentator,  they  fall  into  two  classes  :  {a)  orthodox  or  classical 
Upanishads,  which  furnish  the  proof  texts  for  Vedantism,  and  {!)) 
sectarian  Upanishads,  of  Avhich  only  a  few  are  quoted.  The 
classical  Upanishads  are  eleven  or  twelve  in  number,  and  have 
been  translated  by  Professor  Max  Mueller.^  Secondly,  on  the 
basis  of  the  different  Vedic  schools,  we  may  distinguish  between 
the  Upanishads  of  the  first  three  Vedas,  which  are  eleven  in  num- 
ber and  almost  entirely  orthodox,  and  the  Upanishads  of  the 
Atharva-Veda,  which,  with  a  few  exceptions,  are  sectarian,  het- 
erodox, and  relatively  late.  Thirdly,  on  the  basis  of  the  devel- 
opment of  thought  in  the  different  Upanishads,  we  may  rightly, 
I  think,  make  the  following  classifications  :  First,  tentative  Upan- 
ishads, five  in  number,  namely,  Brhaddranyaka,  Oidndogya, 
Aitareya,  Kansitaki  and  Taittiriya}  These  occupy  the  first 
place,  both  in  age  and  in  importance.  The  argument  for  their 
age  is  cumulative.  They  are  integral  parts  of  the  great  Brdli- 
manas,  and  their  style  is  the  'old  Brdlnnana  prose  style.  They 
present  numerous  illustrations  of  the  allegorical  interpretation  of 
the  ritual.  Each  Upanishad  is  a  collection  of  upanishads  in  the 
primary  sense  of  the  word.  Their  method  is  not  dogmatic,  but 
tentative  and  inquisitive.  Their  authors  appear  as  "  seekers  after 
truth  "  and  their  thoughts  have  rightly  been  styled  "  guesses  at 
truth."  The  dialogue  and  the  parable  are  frequently  employed 
as  literary  forms. 

Of  these  five  Upanishads  the  largest  and  also  the  most  impor- 
tant are  the  Brliaddvanyaka  and  the  Clidndogya.  ^ankaracarya, 
in   his  great  work  on  the  Vedanta-Sutras   makes    about  2000 

^  Liter aturgeschichte,  S.  171,  note. 

2  SEE.,  Vols.  I,  XV. 

"Cf.  Deussen,  Sechzig  Upanishads,  S.  264. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  47 

quotations  from  the  Upanishads.  Of  these  fully  two-thirds  are 
from  the  Chdndogya  and  the  Brliaddranyaka}  The  second  class 
may  be  denominated  the  dogmatic  Upanishads  and  includes  in 
general  the  rest  of  the  pure  Vedanta  Upanishads,  especially  Isd, 
Katha,  Mundaka,  Qvetdgvatara,  and  the  poetic  sections  of  Ketia, 
Brliaddranyaka  (IV,  4,  8-21)  and  Malidndrdyana}  Here  the 
thought  is  more  mature  and  positive,  and  is  set  forth  by  pref- 
erence in  a  poetical  dress.  The  poetic  sections  are  in  general 
nosegays  of  Vedantic  sayings  bound  together  without  much  re- 
gard to  inner  connection.  Innovations  appear.  Although  the 
ideas  are  in  general  in  harmony  with  those  of  the  five  oldest  Up- 
anishads, yet  here  and  there  may  be  detected  the  germs  of  other 
types  of  doctrine,  especially  of  the  Sdinkhya  and  Yoga  and  of 
the  great  sectarian  systems.  The  second  class  of  Upanishads  is 
clearly  more  developed  than  the  first.  Still  later  in  point  of  de- 
velopment than  the  Upanishads  of  the  second  class  are  those  of 
the  third  class,  which  may  well  be  called  the  sectarian  Upan- 
ishads, since  they  are  simply  the  dogmatic  text-books  of  a  trans- 
formed and  sectarian  Brahmanism.  Of  the  third  class  of  Upan- 
ishads, Deussen  has  translated  no  less  than  forty  in  his  masterly 
volume,  Scclizig  Upanishads  dcs  Veda.  Among  these  secta- 
rian Upanishads  might  well  be  reckoned  the  BJiagavadgitd, 
since  it  has  a  distinctly  sectarian  character  and  is  also  called  an 
Upanishad.  To  sum  up,  then,  the  Upanishads  really  fall  into 
two  great  groups,  which  may  be  roughly  described  as  (i)  the 
group  of  Upanishads  of  the  first  three  Vedas  =  the  classic  Upa- 
nishads used  by  Cankaracarya  =  (<^)  tentative  and  (^)  dogmatic 
Upanishads,  and  (2)  the  group  of  Atharva-Veda  Upanishads, 
which  are  in  general  sectarian,  heterodox  and  late.  The  first 
great  group  represents  the  creative  period  of  Indian  philosophy, 
which  may  with  some  degree  of  confidence  be  assigned  to  the 
period  800-300  B.  C.  The  second  great  group  belongs  in  the 
main  to  the  literature  of  the  Hindu  Revival,  and  so  falls  some- 
where within  the  period  covered  by  the  last  two  thousand  years. 

1  Vid.  Deussen,   Vedanta,  S.  32  ff.  for  statistics. 

2  After  Deussen.     Cf.  also  A.  A.   Macdonell,  A  History  of  Sanskrit  Literature, 
1900,  p.  226. 


48  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

■  B.  Doctrine. 

We  notice  a  gradual  change  in  the  point  of  view  from  which 
the  doctrine  of  unity  is  treated.  Thus,  as  already  indicated,  the 
standpoint  of  the  pre-Upanishad  literature  may  in  general  be 
characterized  as  cosmological — the  standpoint  of  common  sense. 
The  unity  described  is  a  concrete  and  all-comprehensive  unity. 
The  world  is  conceived  as  a  colossal  man  (Purusha,  RV.,  X,  90). 
This  symbol  suggests  an  organic  view  of  the  universe  as  a  sys- 
tem of  interrelated  forces  and  processes,  the  home  of  life  and 
development.  All  this  of  course  is  expressed  in  a  very  naive 
and  poetic  form.  In  the  Upanishads,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
an  attempt  to  transcend  the  common-sense  point  of  view.  The 
world  of  experience  is  no  longer  regarded  as  the  thing-in-itself. 
Speculative  thought  probes  beneath  the  surface  of  things  in  its 
quest  for  reality.  This  attitude  was  not  without  anticipations 
even  in  the  Vedic  hymns.  Especially  in  the  hymn  to  Vdc  (X. 
125)  is  there  the  conception  of  an  immanent  Word,  something 
like  the  Stoic  Ibyoc,  a7:ef)ixazr/.6^,  a  force  which  dwells  and  oper- 
ates in  all  things,  and  in  which  unconsciously  all  men  have  their 
being. 

The  great  theme  of  the  Upanishads  is  the  quest  for  reality. 
This  is  beautifully  expressed  in  three  Yaj  us -verses  quoted  in 
BrJiaddraJiyaka  UpaiiisJiad,  I,  3,  27  : 

* '  Lead  me  from  the  unreal  to  the  real  ! 
Lead  me  from  darkness  to  light ! 
Lead  me  from  death  to  immortality  !  "  ^ 

Different  degrees  of  reality  are  recognized.  Thus,  we  read  in 
Chand.  Up.,  I,  i,  2  :  "  The  essence  of  all  beings  is  the  earth,  the 
essence  of  the  earth  is  water,  the  essence  of  water  the  plants,  the 
essence  of  plants  man,  the  essence  of  man  speech,  the  essence  of 
speech  the  Rig-Veda,  the  essence  of  the  Rig- Veda  the  Sama- 
Veda,  the  essence  of  the  Sama-Veda  the  Udgitha."     This  re- 

1  In  the  matter  of  quotations  from  the  Upanishads  it  is  difficult  accurately  to  express 
my  obligation  to  different  scholars.  I  commonly  follow  Prof.  Max  Mueller's  trans- 
lation (SBE.,  Vols.  I  and  XV),  but  not  infrequently  I  modify  it  by  Professor  Deus- 
sen's  renderings.     I  also  make  independent  translations  at  times. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  49 

gressus  from  earth,  the  coarsest  essence  of  things,  back  step  by- 
step  to  the  Udgitha,  the  supreme  formula  of  the  Sama  ritual,  and, 
as  represented  by  its  introductory  syllable  Oin,  the  symbol  of  the 
ultimate  reality,  illustrates  at  once  a  peculiarity  of  the  style  of 
the  older  Upanishads  and  the  mystical  interpretation  of  the  ritual 
which  characterizes  them.  Another  instance  of  such  a  regressus 
from  the  conditioned  to  the  unconditioned  is  found  in  Brh.  Up., 
Ill,  6,  where  the  world  of  experience  is  represented  as  "  woven 
like  warp  and  woof"  in  the  worlds  of  water,  the  worlds  of  water 
in  the  worlds  of  the  sky,  the  worlds  of  the  sky  in  the  worlds  of 
the  Gandharvas,  and  so  on  successively  through  the  worlds 
of  the  sun,  of  the  moon,  of  the  stars,  of  the  Devas,  of  Indra,  of 
Prajapati,  until  finally  "the  worlds  of  Brahman"  are  reached, 
beyond  which  inquiry  cannot  be  made.  Again,  in  several  pass- 
ages i^Kaus.,  II,  14,  Brh.,  I,  3,  Chdnd.,  I,  2,  V,  i)  there  is  mention 
of  a  controversy  among  the  different  prdnas  (breaths,  senses, 
vital  powers)  as  to  which  is  the  greatest.  The  controversy  is 
always  settled  in  favor  of  '  the  breath  in  the  mouth '  {inukliya 
prdna,  dsanya  prdna),  because  breathing  endures  when  all  the 
other  life-powers  (hearing,  seeing,  etc.)  are  quiescent  in  sleep  or 
destroyed.  But  although  the  prdnas  or  vital  activities  have  a 
certain  reality  (and  '  the  breath  in  the  mouth '  more  than  all  the 
rest),  yet  there  is  something  more  real  than  these.  The  prdnas 
are  *  real  '  {satyani)  and  also  their  correlatives  *  name  '  and  '  form ' 
{Brh.  Up.,  I,  6,  3),  but  the  Atman  (ego  or  self)  which  underlies 
them  is  'the  real  of  the  real.'  ^ 

One  more  instance  of  the  search  for  reality  may  be  given, 
and  it  is  the  most  impressive  of  all,  namely  the  famous  Kogavidyd 
or  '  doctrine  of  involucra  '  in  Taitt.  Up.,  II.  It  begins  with  a 
statement  of  the  order  of  creation,  here  a  progressus  from  the 
Atman.  Thus  "from  that  Self  sprang  ether,  from  ether  wind, 
from  wind  fire,  from  fire  water,  from  water  earth,  from  earth 
plants,  from  plants  food,  from  food  seed,  from  seed  man."  Hav- 
ing such  a  genesis,  man  must  be  very  complex.  He  is  derived 
ultimately  from  the  Atman.^'     What  part  of  him  is  identical  with 

^  Satyasya  sat  yam  Brh.   Up.,  II,  I,  20. 

2  Cf.  Luke  III,  36  "Which  was  the  son  of  Adam,  which  was  the  son  of  God.' ' 


50  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

his  source  ?     What  is  the  real  man,  the  real  self  ?     It  is  not  '  the 
man    made   out  of  the   essence   of    food '   {annarasamayd),   the 

'  physical  man,  as  we  would  say,  for  this  aspect  of  man's  nature 
may  be  stripped  off  like  an  outer  husk.  Nor  is  it  the  vital  self 
consisting  of  breath  or  life  (^prdnamaya),  for  this  too  may  be 
eliminated.  So  with  the  self  consisting  of  thought  and  will 
(manomaya),  and  the  self  consisting  of  cognition  and  worship  {vi- 

jndnamayci).     They  do  not  represent  the  real  self,  and  so  may  be 
stripped  off.      Finally,  the  core  of  reality  both  in  man  and  in  nature 
is  found  in  the  self  consisting  of  bliss  {Anandaviayd),  the  inmost 
self  of  all.     This  reality   of  realities  is  defined  psychologically 
as  '  the  ear   of  the  ear,  the  mind  of  the  mind,  the  speech   of 
speech,  the   breath  of  breath  and  the  eye  of  the  eye'  (Keiia.,  I, 
2,  Brh.,  IV,  4,  1 8),  yea  as  'the  light   of  lights'   {Brh.,  IV,  3,  6, 
IV,  4,  18),  compared  with  which  the  light  of  sun,  moon  and  fire 
is  only  secondary.      From   these  different  instances,  we  see  that 
when  thought  is   cosmological,  the  search   for  reality  is   either 
backivard  toward  the  '  one  only  without  a  second  '^  from  whom 
the  whole  world-process  begins,  or  iipivard  to  the  world  of  Brah- 
man which  comprehends  all  worlds  ;  but  when  thought  is  psycho- 
logical, it  is  a  movement  imvard  toward  the  Ego  or  Self.     As 
already  remarked,  there  is  as  yet  no  sharp  distinction  between  the 
real  and  the  unreal.     Realty  presents  itself  as  a  thing  of  degrees. 
Still  we  notice  a  growing  difference  in  the  use  of  the  old  Vedic 
sat  and  asat,  '  being  '   and   '  non-being.'      In  harmony  with  the 
cosmological    point    of  view,  sat  in  the    Rig-Veda    means   the 
world  of  natural  objects  as  it  presents  itself  to  the  ordinary  un- 
derstanding,   the   world  of  experience  as  we  would  say  ;  while 
asat  *  non-being  '  refers  to  that  primitive  undifferentiated  condition 
of  things  which  the  early  philosophers  of  both  Greece  and  India 
postulated  as  the  antecedent  of  the  present  ordered  world.     This 
point  of  view  is  still  maintained   in   Taitt.,  II,    7,  where   sat,  the 
world  distinguished  by  '  name  and  form  '   is  said  to  be  born  of 
asat  '  non-being.'     But  in  Taitt.,  II,  6,  there  emerges  the  first 
germ  of  the  distinction  between  the  world  as  empirically  real  but 
transcendentally  unreal,  and  Brahman  as  empirically  unreal  but 

^Chand.  Up.,  VI,  2,  i  cf.  Gen.,  I,  I,  John,  I,  I. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  5 1 

transcendentally  real.  Thus  the  cosmological  Brahman  as  the 
ordered  world  of  experience  is  described  as  the  sphere  of  being 
isaf),  definition,  relation,  consciousness,  and  reality  (satjaiii) ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  Brahman  as  the  empirically  unknown 
ground  of  all  reality  is  characterized  as  transcendent,  undefined, 
absolute,  unconscious,  and  (empirically)  unreal.  The  next  step 
is  to  make  explicit  the  doctrine  that  the  true  Brahman  is  trans- 
cendentally real  {sat),  and  this  is  done  in  a  passage  which  well 
deserves  to  be  called  the  monistic  Confession  of  faith,  namely  :  'In 
the  beginning  there  was  only  Being  {sat,  to  ov)  one  only  ivitJwiit  a 
second'  (Chand.  Up.,  VI,  2,  i).  This  is  naturally  accompanied 
by  a  polemic  against  the  position  still  entertained  in  Taitt.,  II,  7, 
and  Chand.,  Ill,  19,  i  :  'In  the  beginning  there  was  non-be- 
ing.' '  How,'  said  Uddalaka,  '  could  that  which  is  be  born  of 
that  which  is  not  ?'  This  is  the  standpoint  of  the  later  formulas  : 
Etad  vai  tad,  'This  (as  described)  is  that,'  {Katji.  Up.,  12  times), 
and  Oin  !  tat  sat,  '  That  is  real.' 

Tat  tvamasi,  '  That  art  thou,'  so  reads  the  supreme  identifica- 
tion of  the  Upanishads.  In  the  light  of  what  has  gone  before, 
this  cannot  mean,  as  sometimes  interpreted,  that  man  in  his 
totality  is  equated  with  God.  It  can  only  mean  that  the  core  of 
reality  in  man,  /.  <?.,  his  inmost  self,  is  divine.  This  is  not  essen- 
tially different  from  the  O.  T.  doctrine,  that  man  is  made  in  the 
image  of  God  ^  or  from  the  N.  T.  doctrine  that  man  (Adam  gen- 
eric) is  the  son  of  God.^  As  President  Schurman  says  :  "  I  am 
unable  to  see  how  we  can  believe  in  God  without  at  the  same 
time  regarding  the  finite  spirit,  as  far  as  its  essential  ground  is 
concerned,  as  identical,  within  the  limits  of  its  range,  with  the 
infinite  spirit.  It  is  so  because  it  is  an  ego."^  This  participation 
in,  or  identity  with  the  divine  nature,  it  may  be  noted  in  passing, 
is  the  philosophical  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  whether 
Indian,  Hebrew,  or  Greek. 

The  great  identification,  '  That  art  thou,'  is  stated  in  the  form 
of  another  equation,  namely.  Brahman  =  Atman,  e.  g:,  'This  At- 
man  is  Brahman'  {Brh.  Up.,  II,  5,  19).     The  pre-Upanishad  de- 

iGen.,  I,  27.  2  Luke,  III,  36.  ^  Belief  in  God,  ^.  22-]. 

*  "The  hope  of  a  future  life  Jesus  grounds  upon  man's  essential  kinship  to  God" — 
Stevens,  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  99. 


52  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

velopment  of  Brahman  has  ah'eady  been  pointed  out.  It  means, 
first,  the  word  as  embodied  in  hymn,  formula,  and  text,  whether 
the  emphasis  be  objectively  upon  the  word  as  something  spoken 
or  remembered,  or  subjectively  upon  the  content  and  meaning  of 
the  word.  But  in  the  famous  cosmological  passage  (^at.  Br.,  VI, 
I,  i)  Brahman  'the  threefold  science '(/.  r.,  Rig-Veda,  Sama- 
Veda  and  Yajur-Veda)  is  regarded  as  the  first  born  of  Prajapati, 
and  as  it  were  the  creative  programme.  Hence  Brahman  as  the 
first  born  Logos  '  poured  itself  forth  and  filled  this  whole  Avorld,' 
i.  c,  the  Logos  objectified  itself  and  became  incarnate  as  the 
world  of  nature.  So  we  have  Brahman  the  World  standing  over 
against  Brahman  the  Word  as  its  manifestation,  in  Plato's  lan- 
guage 'the  sensible  God'  as  'the  image  of  the  intellectual.' ^ 
But  in  the  Upanishads,  Brahman  '  Word  '  is  not  only  objectified 
and  found  in  nature  {c.  g.,  '  All  this  is  Brahman  '  Chand.  Up.,  Ill, 
14,  i),  but  is  also  as  it  were  'subjectified'  and  found  in  the 
human  heart.  The  doctrine  of  Brahman  in  the  heart  appears  in 
many  passages,  c.  g.,  '  This  is  my  Atman  (self  or  ego)  within  the 
heart,  this  is  Brahman  '  (Chand.  Up.,  Ill,  14,  4);  '  Consciousness 
(prajfia)  is  Brahman '  (Ait.  Up.,  I,  3,  2);  '  The  heart  is  the 
highest  Brahman  '  {Brh.  Up.,  IV,  i,  7).  Or  again  take  the  sec- 
ond member  of  the  equation,  namely,  Atman.  Its  derivation  is 
disputed.  Still  the  usage  is  clear  enough.  The  word  has  the 
following  meanings  as  correctly  given  by  Deussen  :"  (i)  one's 
own  body  in  opposition  to  the  outer  world,  (2)  the  trunk  of  the 
body  in  opposition  to  the  limbs,  (3)  the  soul  in  opposition  to  the 
body,  and  (4)  the  essential  in  opposition  to  the  non-essential. 
All  of  these  meanings  may  be  illustrated  from  the  Upanishads. 
The  logical  order  would  seem  to  be  :  [a)  bodily  self,  [b)  mental 
self,  (c)  universal  self  Thus  Atman  is  the  '  self  in  the  widest 
sense.  The  formula,  'Brahman  is  Atman,'  would  mean,  then, 
that  the  objective  reality  (Brahman)  is  the  same  as  the  subjective 
reality  (Atman).  As  we  have  it  in  the  splendid  passage  (Chand. 
Up.,  Ill,  13,  7)  :  'That  light  which  shines  above  this  heaven, 
higher  than  all,  higher  than  everything,  in  the  highest  world,  be- 
yond which  there  are  no  other  worlds,  that  is  the  same  light  which 
is  within  man.'  This  identification  is  rendered  possible,  as  al- 
1  TimcBus,  p.  515,  Jowett's  trans.  2  Geschichte,  S.  286. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  53 

ready  pointed  out,  by  converting  Brahman  the  makrokosjiios  into 
a  viikrokosmos,  and  so  conceiving  it  as  consciousness  or  more 
properly  as  the  knowing  subject.  This  manipulation  of  the  old 
cosmological  Brahman  involves  a  peculiar  psychological  treat- 
ment at  which  we  must  briefly  glance. 

The  psychology  of  the  Upanishads  is  thoroughly  idealistic. 
Thus  in  the  dialogue  between  Ajataqatru  King  of  Kagi  and 
Gargya' Balaki  {BrJi.  Up.,  II,  i,  17-20),  we  are  told  that  when  a 
person  goes  to  sleep,  then  the  knowing  subject  [injndnaniaya 
pitrusd)  lies  in  the  ether  which  is  in  the  heart,  having  absorbed 
within  itself  all  the  knowledge  of  the  senses.  When  asleep  the 
person  may  dream,  and  so  create  for  himself  the  worlds  of  dream- 
land, in  which  he  may  figure  as  a  great  king  or  a  great  Brahman. 
Or  his  sleep  may  be  dreamless,  in  which  case  all  difference  be- 
tween subject  and  object  is  blotted  out.  TJiis  is  the  very  image 
of  reality.  When  he  awakes,  then  from  the  knowing  self  emerge 
all  senses,  all  worlds,  all  gods,  all  beings,  i.  e.,  all  the  phenom- 
ena of  actual  or  of  possible  existence,  even  as  a  spider  from  its 
thread,  or  as  sparks  from  fire.  Two  doctrines  are  here  clearly 
taught  :  (i)  The  essential  ideality  of  all  conscious  experience,  /.  e.^ 
'  the  world  is  my  idea,'  and  (2)  no  essential  difference  between 
the  dream-state  and  the  waking-state,  i.  e.,  'life  is  a  dream.'  In 
this  way  Brahman,  the  objective  world,  is  reduced  to  a  mere 
world  of  ideas  created  by  the  human  consciousness.  On  the 
principle  that  there  is  "  no  object  without  a  subject,"  all  beings, 
all  gods,  all  worlds,  all  breaths,  all  souls,  may  be  said  to  be  con- 
tained in  the  self  as  spokes  in  the  axle  of  a  wheel  (^Br/i.  Up.,  II,  5> 
15).  Thus  all  things  become  one  in  the  self  as  consciousness 
{prajhdtniaii  Kaush.,  Ill,  3-4).  ^ 

In  a  sense,  then,  all  things  become  one  in  the  conscious-self,  but 
there  still  remains  the  dualism  of  subject  and  object.  This  must 
be  resolved  if  possible.  The  quest  for  absolute  reality  was  also  the 
quest  for  absolute  unity.  For  the  Indian  sages,  such  absolute  unity 
and  reality  were  symbolized  by  the  states  of  dreamless  sleep  and 
death.     Here  there  is  no  duality  of  subject  and  object.     Knowledge 

1  With  the  Atman  as  the  ground  of  the  unity  of  all  knowledge  Deussen  compares 
Kant's  doctrine  of  the  synthetic  unity  of  apperception. 


54  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

there  is,  indeed  ;  for  "knowing  is  inseparable  from  the  knower," 
because  he  is  imperishable,  and  because  it  is  the  very  nature  of 
the  knower  to  know  ;  but  "  there  is  then  no  second,  nothing  else 
different  from  him  that  he  could  know,"  {Brk.  Up.,  IV,  3,  30). 
Some  sort  of  transcendent  consciousness  seems  to  be  implied  in 
the  paradoxical  statement  that  "when  (in  that  condition)  he  does 
not  know,  yet  he  is  knowing,  though  he  does  not  know."  Here 
the  soul  is  its  own  object,  or,  better,  there  is  no  distinction  be- 
tween subject  and  object,  because  the  soul  is  like  an  ocean  single 
and  all-embracing.     Like  the  one  reahty  of  Chand.  Up.,  VI,  2, 

1,  the  soul  as  the  witnessing  self  is  one  without  a  second,  be- 
cause its  sphere  is  Brahman.  This  is  one's  true  form,  in  which 
one  is  free  from  desire,  free  from  evil,  free  from  fear.  This  is  the 
highest  goal,  the  highest  world,  the  highest  bliss  {Brh.  Up.,  IV, 
3,  21-32).  It  may  be  noted  in  passing  that  consciousness  (as 
we  know  it)  was  to  the  Indian  thinker,  as  time  and  space  to 
Schopenhauer,  the  principle  of  individuation.  Being  was  one. 
Non-being  took  the  form  of  multiplicity.  And  just  as  in  Chand. 
Up.,  VI,  2,  I,  2,  being  was  first  postulated  and  then  non-being 
attacked,  so  unity  was  postulated  in  the  early  prose  Upanishads, 
while  multiplicity  was  attacked  in  the  later  poetic  sections,  es- 
pecially in  Brh.  Up.,  IV,  4,  19  and  Kath.  Up.,  IV,  10,  11. 

We  come  now  to  the  nature  and  attributes  of  Brahman.  In  Brh, 
Up.,  Ill,  9,  28''  we  read  vijndnam  dnandam  Brahma  "  Brahman  is 
knowledge  and  bliss."  And  in  the  famous  Anandavalli  of  the 
Taitt.  Up.  the  nature  of  Brahman  is  described  as  satyain  jndnam 
dnandam,  "  Reality,  Thought,  and  Bliss."  I  read  with  Deussen 
anandam  '  bliss  '  instead  of  anantam  '  infinite.'  The  reasons  for 
the  change  are  obvious.  We  have  here  clearly  the  germ  of  the 
later  {oxvcL\A^.sac-cid-dnanda,  "  Being,  Thought,  and  Bliss."  Brah- 
man is  further  described  as  ekarn  eva  advitiyam,  "  One  only  with- 
out a  second."  Thus  far  the  characterization  of  Brahman  is 
positive.     But  in  four  passages  of  the  Brli.  Up.   (Ill,  9,  26,  IV, 

2,  4,  IV,  4,  22,  IV,  5,  15)  the  absolute  separation  of  Brahman 
from  everything  which  is  changeable  and  knowable  is  emphasized. 
*  He  is  incomprehensible,  for  he  cannot  be  comprehended,  he  is 
imperishable,  for  he  cannot  perish  ;  he  is  unattached,  for  nothing 


DOCTRINE    OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  55 

attaches  itself  to  him.'  In  a  word,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  great  sage,  Ydjhavalkya,  the  Self  can  only  be  described 
negatively  as  neti  neti,  "  no,  no."  This  may  mean  that  the  Self, 
like  a  mathematical  infinite  which  is  too  great  for  any  assignable 
quantity,  is  also  too  great  for  any  assignable  attribute,  in  which 
case  '  neti  neti'  would  mean  '  no,  no,'  in  the  sense  of  '  inadequate, 
inadequate.'  That  is,  '  all  determination  is  limitation.'  Possibly 
Spinoza's  distinction  between  definition  by  genus  and  definition 
by  essence  may  help  us  here.  If  so,  then  Brahman  is  defined 
through  his  essence,  when  he  (or  it)  is  described  as  Reality, 
Thought,  and  Bliss.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  true  that  in 
many  passages  of  the  Upanishads  the  same  attributes,  both  posi- 
tive and  negative,  are  applied  to  Brahman  as  are  applied  to  God 
in  the  Bible.  Thus  he  is  self-existent,  unborn,  eternal,  ancient, 
unchanging,  great,  omnipresent,  luminous,  pure,  bodiless,  etc. 
(cf  Ka[h.  Up.,  II,  18,  22,  Mund.  Up.,  I,  i,  6,  7,  II,  2,  i-i  i).  But 
on  the  whole  the  emphasis  rests  on  the  '  natural '  rather  than  on 
the  '  moral '  attributes,  and  these  are  put  by  preference  in  a  nega- 
tive rather  than  in  a  positive  form. 

The  question  arises,  How  can  Brahman  be  known  ?  The  attri- 
butes of  Brahman  have  been  described.  How  were  these  deter- 
mined ?  The  Indian  thinker,  like  Spinoza,  began  with  the 
problem  of  the  world  as  a  whole.  The  cosmological  Brahman  as 
the  world  of  extension  in  its  totality,  was  proved  by  the  good  old 
way  of  common-sense  through  external  intuition.  In  other  words, 
it  was  simply  assumed.  In  like  manner  the  psychological  Brah- 
man as  consciousness  (Ait.  Up.,  I,  3,  2,)  or  the  world  oi  thought, 
was  proved  by  internal  intuition.  But  beneath  consciousness  was 
something  more  fundamental  still,  the  root  of  both  the  inner  and 
the  outer  world,  the  unity  of  subject  and  object.  It  is  at  once 
the  ground  of  knowing  and  of  being.  It  is  called  *  the  life  of  life, 
the  eye  of  the  eye,  the  ear  of  the  ear,  the  mind  of  the  mind  ' 
{Brli.  Up.,  IV,  4,  18).  Whoso  knows  this  knows  Brahman.  But 
it  is  unknowable.  For  'how,'  asked  Ydjhavalkya  in  the  very 
spirit  of  Berkeley  and  Kant,  '  should  one  know  him  through  whom 
one  knows  all  this  ?  How,  O  beloved,  should  one  know  the 
KnowerT  {Brh.  Up.,  II,  4,  13). 


56  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

Here  the  way  of  intuition,  whether  external  or  internal,  avails 
nothing.  But  we  can  detect  the  method  of  the  discovery  of 
these  high  doctrines.  It  is  the  dialectic  of  reason.  It  is  the 
Socratic  method  of  question  and  answer.  Thus  five  theologians 
once  came  together  and  '  held  a  discussion  as  to  what  is  our 
Self  and  what  is  Brahman  '  (Chand.  Up.,  V,  1 1,  i).  The  Brliad- 
dranyaka  Upanishad,  especially,  is  full  of  philosophical  dialogues. 
The  method  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  by  which  Socrates 
elaborates  the  notion  of  the  Good  and  Spinoza  the  notion  of 
Dcus  or  Substantia.  After  we  have  been  taken  behind  the 
scenes,  as  it  were,  and  have  heard  with  our  own  ears  thinkers 
like  Ydjnavalkya  and  Ajdtagatm,  as  they  argue  on  these  high 
themes,  silence  opponents,  and  establish  the  true  doctrine  of 
Brahman,  it  is  somewhat  incongruous  to  find  in  the  Upanishads 
(especially  in  the  Brh.  Up.)  long  lists  of  teachers  through  whom 
the  doctrine  of  Brahman  is  supposed  to  have  been  handed  down 
in  regular  tradition.  This  is  the  point  of  view  of  the  dogmatic 
Upanishads,  in  which  there  is  a  tendency  to  frown  upon  inde- 
pendent argumentation,  and  to  make  everythingof  the  instruction 
of  the  capable  teacher.  '  That  doctrine  is  not  to  be  obtained  by 
argument,  but  when  it  is  declared  by  another,  then  it  is  easy  to 
understand.'  '  Unless  it  be  taught  by  another,  there  is  no  way  to 
it '  (Kath.  Up.,  I,  2,  8-9).  That  is,  the  doctrine  of  Brahman  is 
something  to  be  passively  received  and  believed.  It  may  be 
noted  that  only  in  the  secondary  and  dogmatic  stage  of  doctrine 
would  the  word  '  upanishad '  appropriately  have  the  meaning  of 
'  a  sitting  at  the  feet  of  a  teacher,'  and  therefore  passive  accep- 
tance of  his  teaching.  The  lists  of  teachers  in  the  Brh.  Up.  go 
back  even  to  Brahman  the  self-existent.  In  a  period  when  the 
work  of  the  guru  or  teacher  was  so  all-important,  Brahman  him- 
self was  considered  as  the  first  of  all  gurus.  So  in  the  second 
or  post-exile  stage  of  O.  T.  religion  the  doctrine  of  God  as 
teacher  is  emphasized.  '  Teach  me,  O  God  '  is  a  frequent  thought 
in  the  Psalms  of  the  period.  Thus  to  sum  up,  there  are 
virtually  two  forms  of  Brahman.  The  first  or  lower  form  is 
knowable  through  sense  perception  and  consciousness.  We  may 
compare  it  with  the  nattira  natiirata  of  Spinoza  viewed  as  an 


DOCTRINE   OF  THE   UPANISHADS.  57 

aggregate  of  finite  modes.  As  conditioned  it  points  to  something 
beyond  itself  which  is  unconditioned.^  The  second  or  higher 
form  of  Brahman  is  a  postulate  of  reason.  As  identical  with 
the  knowing  subject,  it  can  never  become  an  object  of  knowledge, 
and  so  must  ever  remain  in  its  inmost  nature  a  mystery.  Being, 
unity,  thought,  and  bliss  may  be  predicated  of  it.  But  even 
here  it  may  be  that  we  must  add  the  qualification  ncti,  neti,  '  in- 
adequate, inadequate.'  Still,  however  mysterious  its  nature  may 
be,  its  existence  can  be  known.  Such  an  immanent  reality,  as  the 
ground  of  all  knowing  and  being,  is  suggested  by  consciousness  ; 
but,  more  than  this,  it  is  proved  by  the  speculative  insight  of  the 
ancient  seers.  And  so,  although  Brahman,  the  knowmg  sub- 
ject, as  such  is  unknowable,  yet  the  doctrine  of  Brahman  may 
be  handed  down  from  teacher  to  teacher  and  received  on  feith 
by  the  believing  pupil. 

We  have  already  discussed  the  doctrine  of  identity  in  the 
Upanishads.  It  is  emphasized  in  a  goodly  number  of  passages, 
'  That  light  which  shines  above  this  heaven  ...  is  the  same  light 
which  is  within  man'  (Chand.  Up.,  Ill,  13,  7).  'Brahman  is 
Atman.'  '  That  art  thou.'  Whatever  is  real  in  man  or  in  nature 
is  identical  with  Brahman  and  there  is  no  difference.  Deep  sleep 
and  death  are  the  image  of  reality.  In  them  the  finite  conscious- 
ness as  the  principle  of  individuation  has  no  sphere.  In  them  the 
forms  of  cognition  which  make  for  multiplicity  are  transcended. 
Brahman  is  described  as  '  thought.'  Regard  thought  qualitatively 
instead  of  quantitatively,  or  in  Kantian  language  eliminate  the 
pure  forms  of  intuition  space  and  time,  or  blot  out  the  finite  con- 
sciousness while  still  regarding  thought  as  persistent ;  and  lo  ! 
thought  is  seen  to  be  one  and  indivisible,  the  sole  reality,  and 
conscious  of  itself  as  bliss.  It  is  from  this  high  standpoint  that 
Brahman  is  described  as  reality,  unity,  thought,  and  bliss.  All 
this  according  to  the  highest  teaching  of  the  Upanishads  is 
eternally  true.  It  is  true  for  every  man,  yea  for  every  creature. 
But  alas  !  most  creatures  are  like  people  who  '  walk  again  and 
again  over  a  gold  treasure  that  has  been  hidden  in  the  earth'  - 

iCf.  C/iaiui.  6>.,  Ill,  13,  8. 

2Cf.  parable  of  the  Hidden  Treasure,  Matt.  XIII,  44. 


58  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

(Chand.  Up.,  VIII,  3,  2).  They  go  day  after  day  into  the 
Brahma-world  (in  deep  sleep),  and  yet  do  not  discover  it.  The 
soul's  identity  with  Brahman  remains  hidden  from  their  eyes. 
This  is  the  discovery  of  discoveries,  the  supreme  discovery.  Even 
the  eternal  Brahman  himself  made  this  discovery  in  the  beginning, 
saying  Aham  Bralinia  asini  *  I  am  Brahman  '  {Brh.  Up.,  I,  4,  10). 
So  Brahman  became  what  he  is  through  knowledge.  He  knew 
himself  as  Brahman  and  so  became  Brahman.  In  like  manner 
whosoever  awakes  to  the  same  consciousness,  whether  deva  or 
rishi  or  man,  he  too  becomes  Brahman.  The  way  of  deliverance 
is  the  way  of  knowledge.  *  He  who  knows  Brahman  attains  the 
highest '  (Taitt.  Up.,  II,  i).  'I  am'  Brahman  !  '  '  I  am  a  child  of 
God  ! '  So  speaks  the  profoundest  rehgious  consciousness  of 
both  India  and  Palestine.  And  the  consciousness  which  so  speaks 
is  conceived  in  both,  albeit  with  far-reaching  differences,  as  the 
result  of  a  divine  discovery,  an  awakening  to  reality,  a  realization 
of  one's  true  self. 

"  C.    Consequences  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  older  Upanishads  are  integral  parts  of  the  Aranyakas  or 
'forest  treatises.'  These  represent  the  speculations  of  men  who, 
in  secular  phraseology,  had  .'  retired  from  business,'  or,  in 
religious  phraseology,  had  '  withdrawn  from  the  world.'  The 
doctrine  of  the  four  dgranias  or  stages  of  life,  like  that  of  the 
four  castes,  was  of  gradual  growth.  An  early  notice  (Chand. 
Up.,  II,  23,  i)  mentions  only  three  generic  duties  of  the  Vedic 
Aryans  :  {a)  that  of  sacrifice,  study  and  almsgiving,  {b)  that  of 
austerity  {tapas),  and  (r)  that  of  the  Braliviacdrin  or  student  in 
the  house  of  a  teacher.  These  are  brought  forward  as  different 
types  of  religious  life,  which  find  their  reward  in  the  worlds 
of  the  blessed.  Contrasted  with  these,  however,  is  the  state  of 
the  Brahmasamstha,  '  he  who  stands  fast  in  Brahman,'  who  obtains 
immortality.  This  passage  clearly  dates  from  a  time  when  the 
later  distinction  between  four  dgranias  had  not  yet  crystallized. 
In  fact  we  have  here  perhaps  the  germ  of  such  a  fourfold  divi- 
sion, for  the  three  functions  mentioned  correspond  to  those  of 
the  grihastha,  vdjtaprastha  and  brahmacdrin  respectively,   while 


DOCTRINE   OF  THE    UPANISHADS.  59 

the  Brahmasamstha  as  occupying  the  new  or  Upanishad  stand- 
point, would  seem  to  be  an  anticipation  of  the  later  san- 
nydsin}  Three  of  the  four  stages  are  entirely  natural.  Knowl- 
edge is  acquired  during  the  first  twenty  or  thirty  years  of 
a  man's  life  (Chand.  Up.,  VI,  1,2);  after  that  come  marriage  and 
the  duties  of  a  householder ;  and  finally  as  old  age  comes  on 
men  retire  from  active  life,  hand  over  their  business  to  their  chil- 
dren, and  devote  their  last  days  to  religious  contemplation.  For 
as  Plato  says,^  "  the  time  (/.  c,  50  years)  has  now  arrived  at  which 
they  must  raise  the  eye  of  the  soul  to  the  universal  light  which 
lightens  all  things  and  behold  the  absolute  good."  To  drop  the 
cares  of  a  householder  would  in  India  mean  naturally  to  spend 
most  of  one's  time  in  the  cool  and  leafy  forest  on  the  outskirts  of 
the  village,  or  to  wander  in  oriental  simplicity  from  settlement  to 
settlement  of  the  same  Aryan  brotherhood,  having  one's  few 
wants  supplied  by  the  hospitality  of  one's  clan-people.  This 
was  no  more  begging  than  it  is  for  the  occidental  to  '  go  visiting ' 
where  he  knows  that  he  will  be  asked  to  dine.  In  each  com- 
munity the  '  superannuated,'  especially  priests  and  warriors, 
would  often  meet  one  another  and  talk  over  the  themes  which 
are  naturally  interesting  to  old  men  as  they  draw  near  to  the  end 
of  life.^  For  them  philosophy  was  in  a  very  real  sense  '  a  medi- 
tation of  death.'  Such  discussions,  however,  were  not  confined 
to  men.  Women  take  part  in  them  by  asking  questions  {e.  g., 
Maitreyi,  BrJi.  Up.,  II,  4,  and  Gargi,  Ibid.,  Ill,  6  and  8).  Nor  were 
they  confined  to  the  circle  of  the  aged.  Just  as  Socrates  in  his 
search  for  truth  delighted  in  catechizing  young  men  {c.  g., 
Charmides),  so  the  thinkers  of  ancient  India  were  fond  of  ask- 
ing young  men  how  much  they  knew  (Chand.  Up.,  V,  3),  espe- 
cially if  they  had  just  returned  from  the  house  of  the  preceptor, 
well  read  and  conceited  (Chand.  Up.,  VI,  i,  2,  3).  Fathers  teach 
their  sons  the  doctrine  of  Brahman  (Chand.  Up.,  VI).  It  is  re- 
markable what  a  prominent  part  the  Kshatriyas  played  in  these 
discussions.     Not  only  were  there  philosophical  tournaments  at 

iVid.  Deussen  in  loco.  [Upanishads,  S.  96  ff. ). 
'^Republic,  Bk.  VII,  p.  244,  Jowett's  trans. 
3Cf.  Chand.  Up.,l,d,,V,  11. 


6o  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  courts  of  kings,  e.  g.,  at  the  court  of  Janaka  king  of  the 
Videhas  [Brh.  Up.,  Ill,  i,  i),  but  the  kings  themselves  were  not 
infrequently  philosophers,  e.  g.,  Ajatagatru  {Brh.  Up.,  VI,  i)  and 
Agvapati  Kaikeya  (Chand.  Up.,  V,  i  r,  4-5).  Thus  the  ideal  of 
Plato  was  realized  that  kings  should  be  philosophers  and  philoso- 
phers kings.  There  were  not  only  Brahman  sages,  but  Kshatriya 
sages  also  ;  and  the  latter  are  often  represented  as  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  doctrine  of  Brahman  than  the  former.  E.  g., 
Pravahana  Jaivali  (Chand.  Up.,  I,  8,  2,  V,  3,  5)  and  Agvapati 
Kaikeya  (V,  11).  It  looks  as  if  the  philosophic  movement 
represented  by  the  earliest  Upanishads  had  derived  its  impulse 
originally  from  the  Kshatriya  thinkers.  In  this  connection  it  is 
interesting  to  remember  that  both  Buddha  and  Krishna  are 
represented  as  royal  sages.  From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  the 
doctrine  of  Brahman  was  no  secret  doctrine  of  a  philosophic 
coterie,  as  the  current  explanation  of  Upanishad  would  suggest, 
but  was  communicated  to  anyone.  Brahman  or  Kshatriya,  old  or 
young,  man  or  woman,  who  was  worthy  to  receive  it.  But  as 
regards  its  origin,  it  must  be  referred  decidedly  to  the  class  of 
vanaprasthas  or  men  who  had  either  partially  or  wholly  retired 
from  active  life  and  so  had  leisure  for  thought.  There  is  no  in- 
stance, so  far  as  I  know,  of  two  young  men  or  two  women  dis- 
cussing the  doctrine  of  Brahman.  Whenever  a  young  man  or  a 
woman  takes  part  in  a  dialogue,  the  other  speaker  is  invariably 
either  a  Brahman  sage  or  a  Kshatriya  sage.  '  Advanced  thought,' 
then,  in  Ancient  India  came  from  the  circle  of  the  vanaprasthas  or 
'forest-dwellers.'  In  many  respects  it  was  radical  and  revolu- 
tionary. It  involved  reconstruction  and  readjustment  in  several 
directions.  It  had  important  consequences,  religious,  ethical, 
eschatological,  and  philosophical.    There  must  now  be  considered. 

/.  Rcligio7is. 

The  religion  of  the  Upanishads  is  the  religion  of  the  Atman  or 
Self  '  The  Self  is  the  lord  of  all  beings,  the  king  of  all  beings,' 
(^Br/i.  Up.,  II,  5,  15).  'Let  a  man  ivorship  the  Self  alone  as  dear' 
(I,  4,  8).  This  is  perhaps  the  nearest  approach  in  the  early 
Upanishads  to  the  doctrine  of  love  to  God  as  set  forth  in  the  com- 


DOCTRINE    OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  6 1 

mand,  "  Thou  shall  love  the  Lord  thy  God."  The  Self  is  nearer 
and  dearer  than  son  or  wealth  or  anything  else,  because  it  is  the 
Self  and  is  manifested  to  the  consciousness  of  every  one  as  his 
own  soul.  As  Ydjnavalkya  beautifully  says  :  '  A  wife  is  not 
dear,  that  you  may  love  the  wife  ;  but  that  you  may  love  the  Self, 
therefore  a  wife  is  dear'  {Brh.  Up.,  II,  4,  5).  This  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  the  statement  of  an  extreme  egoism,  but  rather  as 
something  involved  in  the  great  doctrine  of  identity.  If  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Vedas  is  to  be  described  as  objective  and  ritualistic, 
that  of  the  Upanishads  must  be  described  as  subjective  and 
spiritual.  It  is  a  religion  not  of  the  object  but  of  the  subject. 
God  is  sought  not  beyond  the  stars,  but  in  the  depths  of  the 
human  heart.  The  identity  of  the  individual  self  and  of  the  High- 
est Self  is  recognized.  Being  able  to  say  '  I  am  Brahman,'  one 
becomes  Brahman. 

He  who  the  Self  within  himself 
Beholds  as  God  immediately, 
Lord  of  the  future  and  the  past, — 
He  from  that  time  is  not  afraid. 

{Brh.  up.,  IV,  4,  15). 

The  worship  of  the  Self  looks  at  first  sight  like  self-worship. 
But  it  would  hardly  be  fair  to  call  it  that.  The  Christian  doc- 
trine of  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  dwelling  in  the  heart 
of  the  devout  believer  and  so  creating  a  mystic  union  between 
the  human  and  the  Divine,  is  perhaps  the  best  analogue  of 
the  doctrine  in  question.  This  is  the  standpoint  of  Paul  the 
Apostle.  Religion  began  with  him  when  Christ  was  revealed  in 
him.^ 

In  the  early  Upanishads  we  notice  a  polemic  against  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Devas.  The  objections  are  metaphysical.  Each 
object  or  phenomenon  is  an  effect  of  the  Self  and  so  only  partially 
and  inadequately  expresses  the  nature  thereof.  '  The  Self  is  un- 
seen. .  .  .  As  breathing  he  is  called  breath,  as  speaking  speech, 
as  seeing  eye,  as  hearing  ear,  as  thinking  thought.  All  these  are 
but  names  of  his  works.     Whoso  worships  one  or  other  of  these 

^Gal.,  I,  16. 


62  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

is  not  wise  ;  for  the  Self  is  only  partially  identical  with  any  one  of 
them.  Let  one  worship  the  Self  alone  ;  for  in  him  all  these  be- 
come one  '  {Brh.  Up.,  I,  4,  7).  But  the  antithesis  between  the 
Self  and  his  works  is  also  the  antithesis  between  subject  and  object. 
'He  who  worships  another  deity,  thinking  that  the  deity  is  one 
and  he  another,  is  not  wise.'  To  be  able  to  say,  '  I  am  Brahman,' 
is  to  become  the  self  of  all  things,  yea  even  of  the  Devas  {Brh. 
Up.,  I,  4,  10).  The  same  sharp  polemic  against  the  popular  wor- 
ship is  expressed  in  Kena  I,  5  : 

Unthinkable  by  thought  is  that 

Through  which  they  say  that  thought  is  thought ; 

Brahman  know  that  alone  to  be, 

Not  that  which  people  here  adore. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  both  the  sages  of  India  and  the 
prophets  of  Israel  attacked  the  popular  worship  of  their  times. 
The  former  assailed  it  on  metaphysical  grounds  ;  the  latter  {c.  g., 
Amos  and  Hosea)  on  moral  grounds. 

There  was  finally  a  compromise  between  the  religion  of  the 
Atman  and  the  religion  of  the  Devas.  The  religion  of  the  Devas 
flourished  among  the  people  at  large,  while  the  religion  of  the 
Atman  prevailed  among  the  Vanaprasthas  and  such  as  came 
under  their  influence.  The  Atman  was  a  'jealous  god,'  and 
tolerated  no  second.  For  the  thinkers  of  India  an  'associate'  of 
the  Atman  was  as  obnoxious  metaphysically  as  an  associate  of 
Allah  was  for  Mohammed  religiously.  The  Atman  swallowed 
up  the  Vedic  Devas  and  so  became  'all  in  all.'  It  then  retired 
beyond  the  reach  of  mortal  ken.  The  one  reality  was  made 
unknowable.     As  we  have  it  paradoxically  in  Kena  II,  3  : 

By  whom  not  thought,  by  him  'tis  thought ; 
By  whom  'tis  thought,  he  knows  it  not. 
Unknowable  for  those  that  know, 
Well  known  by  those  who  do  not  know  ! 

This  sounds  somewhat  like  the  N.  T.  paradox  of  the  things  hidden 
from  the  wise  and  prudent  and  revealed  unto  babes.  Here  the 
early  Upanishad  doctrine  of  the  unknowableness  of  the  knowing 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  63 

subject  is  pushed  to  such  an  extreme  as  seriously  to  encroach  upon 
the  doctrine  of  deHverance  through  the  knowledge  of  Brahman. 
The  result  is  that  the  unknowable  Brahman  comes  to  be  repre- 
sented more  and  more  by  symbols.  The  syllable  Om,  the  ever- 
lasting '  yea  and  amen  '  (Chand.  Up.,  I,  i,  8),  is  a  favorite  emblem 
of  Brahman.  So  are  jyotis  'light'  {^Bvli.  Up.,  IV,  4,  16),  and 
/;w/^z 'breath,'  'spirit'  (Chand.  Up.,  IV,  10,  5).^  But  even  more 
concrete  symbols  are  employed.-  And  in  the  late  dogmatic  and 
sectarian  Upanishads  a  whole  host  of  deities,  e.g.,  Brahma,  VisJuiu, 
(^iva,  Ndrdyana,  etc.,  appear  as  representatives  or  personifica- 
tions of  Brahman.  Thus  the  Vedic  deities  are  first  banished  and 
then  either  they  or  their  equivalents  are  recalled  to  act  as  inter- 
mediaries between  '  the  Great  Unknown  '  (Brahman)  and  the  con- 
scious self.  So  there  was  a  compromise  between  philosophy  and 
popular  religion  in  the  period  of  the  later  Upanishads,  just  as 
there  was  between  prophecy  and  popular  religion  among  the 
Hebrews  of  the  post-exile  period. 

//.  Ethical. 

The  ethical  system  of  the  Upanishads  is  involved  in  the  doctrine 
of  Brahman.  And  since  we  have  in  the  Upanishads  the  identity 
of  philosophy  and  religion,  we  may  call  the  ethics  found  there 
both  philosophical  and  religious.  As  philosophical,  it  is  a  deduc- 
tion from  the  nature  of  Brahman  ;  as  religious,  a  program  for 
the  attainment  of  Brahman.  Brahman  or  the  Self  is  the  home  of 
reality,  thought,  and  bliss.  It  is  far  removed  from  multiplicity 
and  change.  It  is  beyond  hunger,  thirst,  sorrow,  delusion,  old 
age,  and  death  (^Brh.  Up.,  Ill,  5,  i).  It  is  sinless  (Chand.  Up., 
VIII,  7,  i).  It  is  immortal.  Whatever  is  separate  from  it  is 
sorrcnvfnl  {Brh.  Up.,  Ill,  7,  23).  We  stand  here  at  the  very 
birthplace  of  Indian  pessimism.  It  is  often  referred  to  the  in- 
fluence of  climatic  and  other  natural  conditions.  Why  then  did 
pessimism  not  appear  earlier  in  India  ?  There  is  no  clear  trace 
of  it  either  in  the  Vcdas  or  in  the  Brdhmanas.     It  seems  to  me 

'Compare  'God  is  light'  (I  John  I,  5)  and    'God  is  spririt '  John  IV,  24. 
''■E.  g.,  Indra  in  Ait.  Up.,  I,  3,  14  [Deussen's  numbering],  Kaush.,  Ill,  I,  Taitt. 
1,4. 


64  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

that  Oldenberg  ^  is  entirely  in  harmony  with  the  sources  when  he 
assigns  to  Indian  pessimism  a  speculative  and  metaphysical 
origin.  There  is  a  dam  (Chand.  Up.,  VIII,  4,  i)  separating  be- 
tween the  noumenal  world  which  is  timeless,  changeless,  sinless, 
and  deathless,  and  the  phenomenal  world  which  is  the  home  of 
unreality,  multiplicity,  decay,  sin,  sorrow,  and  death.  To  be  on 
this  side  is  ipso  facto  to  be  in  the  state  of  sorrow,  for  everything 
other  than  Brahman  is  sorrowful.  It  is  not  that  this  world  is 
the  worst  possible  world,  but  that  the  world  of  Brahman  is  so 
much  better.  As  Oldenberg  says,^  "  The  glorification  of  the 
Atman  becomes  involuntarily  an  ever  increasingly  bitter  criticism 
of  this  world."  Weighed  against  the  changeless  bliss  of  the 
Atman,  the  best  that  this  changing  world  can  afford  must  appear 
defective.  A  kind  of  pessimism  has  ever  marked  the  attitude  of 
the  choicest  spirits  toward  the  actual  world.  We  detect  it  in  the 
writings  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  and  also  in  the  words  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  His  Apostles,  not  to  mention  Plato  and  the  moderns, 
Schopenhauer  and  Carlyle.  The  pessimism  of  the  Indian  sages 
is  speculative  and  is  the  consequence  of  their  theory  of  being  ; 
that  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  is  ethical,  the  consequence  of  their 
theory  of  duty. 

The  logical  result  of  the  condemnation  of  the  world  was  its 
renunciation.  The  motive  of  such  renunciation  was  declared  to 
be  the  knowledge  of  the  Self.  Knowing  this  Self,  Brahmans 
give  up  the  desire  of  children,  wealth,  and  the  world,  and  wander 
about  as  beggars  (^Brli.  Up.,  Ill,  5,  i).  But  renunciation  in  order 
to  be  genuine  involves  the  destruction  of  desire,  or  rather  the 
destruction  of  desires  through  the  realization  of  one  supreme  desire. 
So  we  read  of  him  who  is  without  desire,  free  from  desire,  whose 
desire  is  realized,  whose  desire  is  the  Self  {BifJi.  Up.,  IV,  4,  6). 
Such  an  one  bears  the  name  akdmayavidna,  '  he  who  does  not 
desire.' 

When  all  desires  have  been  removed, 

Which  make  their  home  in  human  hearts, 

Mortal  immortal  then  becomes, 

Brahman  e'en  here  is  then  attained. 

(^B^Iu   up.,  IV,  4,  7.) 

'^Buddha,  p.  42,  ff.  2  Op.  cit.,  p.  42. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  65 

Likewise  said  Christ :  "  If  any  man  would  come  after  me,  let 
him  deny  himself.  ,  .  .  What  doth  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain 
the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul."  ^ 

Not  only  is  '  the  world  with  its  affections  and  lusts  '  to  be  re- 
nounced, but  tmion  with  Brahman  the  Self  is  to  be  realized. 
The  name  for  such  union  \ssdyiijyazxi<\  perhaps  also  yoga.  The 
word  'yoga'  occurs  only  once  in  the  older  Upanishads  (Taitt., 
II,  4,  i),  and  there  in  the  sense  of  '  devotion.'  But  it  came  in 
course  of  time  to  be  about  equivalent  to  '  means  of  union.' 
Two  such  means  have  already  been  considered,  namely  knowledge 
and  renunciation.  In  the  later  Upanishads,  however,  yoga,  as 
actually  used,  refers  to  a  very  special  kind  of  means  connected 
with  the  control  of  the  breath.  As  a  way  of  realizing  union 
{sdyiijyd)  with  deity,  such  control  is  first  mentioned  in  BrJi.  Up., 
I,  5,  23.  From  the  control  of  the  breath  and  senses  resulted 
oftentimes  the  induction  of  a  state  of  trance  or  unconsciousness. 
As  we  have  it  in  the  earliest  account  of  the  developed  Yoga  : 

For  outer  sense  exists  no  form  of  Brahman, 
Not  with  the  eye  can  anyone  behold  him ; 
But  only  through  the  spirit's  high  equipment, 
Whoso  thus  knows  him,  he  becomes  immortal. 

When  the  five  senses  quiet  are, 
And  with  them  also  human  thought  ; 
When  functions  intellect  no  more, 
This  is  known  as  the  highest  state. 

(^Kath.  Up.,  VI,  9,  10.) 

The  origin  of  this  method  of  union  is  not  difficult  to  detect. 
Brahman,  as  the  synthesis  of  subject  and  object,  was  best  sym- 
bolized by  the  state  of  unconsciousness  as  seen  in  deep  sleep 
and  death.  And  besides  Brahman  had  come  more  and  more  to 
be  regarded  as  theoretically  unknowable.  The  finite  conscious- 
ness, too,  was  regarded  as  at  once  the  principle  of  individuation 
and  of  desire.  In  order  to  transcend  these  one  must  transcend 
consciousness.  Only  thus  would  renunciation  be  complete. 
What,  then,  more  natural  than  to  seek  to   be   conformed  to  the 

1  Matt.  XVI,  24-26. 


66  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

image  of  Brahman  by  the  way  of  mysticism  and  trance  through 
an  artificial  induction  of  tlie  unconscious  or  perhaps  of  the 
siiperconscioiis  state  ?  All  this  reminds  one  of  Neo-platonism. 
Ethics,  then,  in  the  Upanishads  belongs  to  the  soteriology  of  the 
religion  of  the  Atman.  In  this  soteriology  three  moments  have 
been  distinguished,  namely  /^;z<3'ze'/^(/^i' through  speculative  insight, 
renunciation  and  mysticism. 

III.  Eschatological. 

The  doctrine  of  transmigration  first  appears  explicitly  in  the 
Upanishads.  It  is  unknown  in  the  Rig-Veda,  where  we  meet 
only  with  the  belief  in  a  continued  existence  after  death  in  the 
abode  of  Yama.  It  is  true  that  the  \\ox6. punarmrtyu  '  Wiedertod,' 
'  second  death,'  occurs  in  the  BrdJimanas  as  well  as  in  Brli.  Up., 
I,  2,  7,  etc.,^  but  there  is  clearly  no  reference  to  transmigration. 
The  origin  of  Indian  metempsychosis  is  uncertain.  Gough^ 
thinks  that  it  was  borrowed  from  the  aborigines,  because  it  has 
been  shown  to  be  a  wide-spread  belief  among  semi-savage  tribes, 
and,  moreover,  was  unknown  in  the  pre-Upanishad  literature. 
But  another  hypothesis  is  possible.  May  there  not  have  been 
something  in  the  Upanishad  speculations  of  such  a  character  as 
to  give  rise  to  the  doctrine  ?  The  doctrine  was  clearly  lifted  into 
prominence  by  the  vdnaprasthas,  who  would  hardly  have  picked 
up  and  cherished  a  non-Aryan  superstition  unless  their  own 
system  of  thought  came  to  demand  it.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  advanced  thought  of  the  Upanishads  called  naturally  for  some 
revision  of  old  eschatological  conceptions.  '  What  is  it  that  does 
not  leave  a  man  after  death  ?'  asked  the  son  of  Ritablidga  of 
Ydjnavalkya.  '  Name '  and  '  work  '  he  replied,  /.  e.,  the  knowing 
subject  and  his  character.  For  '  a  man  becomes  good  by  good 
work  and  bad  by  bad  work  '  {Brh.  Up.,  Ill,  2,  I2,  13).  This  po- 
sition is  still  further  developed  in  IV,  4,  2-6,  where  we  read  that 
after  all  multiplicity  of  sensation  has  ceased  at  the  death  of  a  man, 
then  his  knoivledge  {vidyd  consciousness  of  duty)  and  his  work 
(karman),  yea  his  whole  previous  experience  {ptirvaprajnd),  lay 

1  '  He  overcomes  the  second  death,'  cf.  Apocal.  loh.  II,  ii. 
^Philosophy  of  the  Upanishads,  pp.  24,  25. 


DOCTRINE  OF   THE    UPAAISHADS.  6/ 

hold  of  him  and  lead  him  to  another  form  of  existence,  whether 
it  be  that  of  the  fathers,  or  of  the  Gandharvas  or  of  the  Devas  or 
of  Prajapati  or  of  Brahman  or  of  other  beings.  Thus  the  motive 
which  governs  these  speculations  is  ethical.  The  law  which  every- 
where operates  is  the  law  of  recompense.  '  Whatsoever  a  man 
soweth  that  shall  he  also  reap.'  The  future  world  of  the  old 
Vedic  teaching  is  no  longer  conceived  as  '  the  place  of  departed 
spirits'  without  regard  to  character,  but  is  broken  up  into  '  spheres 
of  recompense,'  in  which  there  are  different  degrees  of  dignity 
and  blessedness  corresponding  to  '  the  deeds  done  in  the  body.* 
The  future  state  was  not  regarded  as  a  disembodied  state. 
Each  one  there  had  his  own  riipa  or  *  form,'  perhaps  conceived 
as  a  '  spiritual  body.'^  But  the  world  of  Yama  had  come 
to  be  regarded  as  exclusively  the  world  of  the  blessed.  What 
was  to  be  done  with  those  who  were  not  worthy  of  enter- 
ing that  world?  '  Hell '  had  not  yet  been  invented  as  a  place  of 
punishment.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  spheres  of  recom- 
pense began  at  the  top  with  the  very  world  of  Brahman  himself 
{BraliDialokd).  What  more  natural  than  to  extend  them  down- 
ward until  they  include  the  worlds  of  men,  animals,  plants,  and 
inorganic  nature?  According  to  this  view,  the  doctrine  of  trans- 
migration in  India  began  through  the  extension  of  the  '  spheres 
of  recompense,'  so  as  to  cover  all  beings,  all  forms,  all  bodies. 
This  seems  to  me  a  very  plausible  hypothesis.  Accordingly 
there  would  be  a  future  form  and  condition  appropriate  for  every 
creature.  The  sage  might  take  the  form  of  a  Deva,  while  the 
man  whose  conduct  had  been  evil  would  be  born  as  *  a  dog  or  a 
hog  or  a  Oianddla'  (Chand.  Up.,  V,  lo,  7).  Here,  as  in  Plato, 
transmigration  is  conceived  as  a  minister  of  justice,  which  assigns 
to  every  creature  its  appropriate  lot.  The  law  of  man's  nature 
and  destiny  is  expressed  as  follows  :  *  Man  is  altogether  made  of 
desire  f  as  is  his  desire,  so  is  his  insight  f  as  is  his  insight  so  is 
his  work  [kaniiaii) ;  and  as  is  his  work  so  is  his  destiny '  {Brh. 
Up.,    IV,  4,    5).      All  this    is   true   for  human  experience    and 

^  Q.{.  pranatarira  '  whose  body  is  spirit,'  Chand.  Up.,  Ill,  14,  2. 

^Kdma,  cf.  the  '  conatus '  of  Spinoza  and  the  '  will  to  live  '  of  Schopenhauer. 

»  Kratu  =  both  intellect  and  will. 


68      •  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

thought,  but  for  them  alone.  In  Kantian  language  the  law  of 
karman  is  a  principle  regulative  of  experience,  but  not  constitu- 
tive of  reality.  For  as  soon  as  the  standpoint  of  human  conscious- 
ness which  is  marked  by  desire  and  ignorance  is  transcended,  then 
both  merit  and  demerit  vanish  into  thin  air.  This,  it  seems  to 
me,  was  the  earliest  form  of  the  post-Vedic  eschatology.  It  fur- 
nished a  favorite  field  for  speculation,  so  that  very  soon  numerous 
modifications  were  introduced  into  the  older  doctrine.  As  pointed 
out  by  Deussen,^  these  modifications  proceed  by  way  of  the 
combination  and  recombination  of  the  fundamental  eschatological 
conceptions  under  the  domination  of  different  motives,  ethical, 
ritualistic  and  cosmological.  As  might  be  expected,  their  details 
cannot  always  be  harmonized. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  in  the  later  Vedantism  philosophy 
is  often  conceived  negatively  as  a  means  of  deliverance  from  the 
round  of  transmigration.  It  cannot  be  too  much  emphasized 
that  in  the  beginning  it  was  not  so.  For  the  thinkers  of  the 
earliest  Upanishads,  the  investigation  of  Brahman,  the  one  reality, 
was  something  positive.  Their  impulse  to  philosophy  was  not 
derived  from  belief  in  transmigration,  but  rather  the  doctrine  of 
transmigration  itself  seems  to  have  been,  if  not  the  product  of  the 
doctrine  of  Brahman,  at  least  an  ethical  postulate  of  the  same 
course  of  thought  which  led  to  the  developed  doctrine  of  Brah- 
man. For  it  expressed  the  conviction  of  an  indissoluble  wedlock 
between  character  and  destiny. 

IV.  Philosophical. 

The  doctrine  of  Maya  is  the  logical  result  of  the  doctrine  of 
Brahman.  Brahman,  like  the  substantia  of  Spinoza,  is  one  and 
indivisible  ;  so  the  speculative  reason  of  India  declared.  But  for 
sense  multiplicity  exists  and  is  real.'  There  is  thus  a  dualism  be- 
tween reason  and  sense.  The  one  affirms  unity ;  the  other  mul- 
tiplicity. It  has  been  evident  from  the  very  first  that  multiplicity 
must  go  to  the  wall.  The  temper  of  the  Vedanta  thinkers  has 
ever  been  rationalistic. 

1  upanishads,  S.  139  ff. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE    UPANISHADS.  69 

For  a  long  time  the  antithesis  between  unity  and  plurality  re- 
mained unresolved.  The  two  stood  side  by  side  unarticulated  and 
unreconciled.  From  the  very  first,  however,  the  explanation  was 
implicit.  It  may  be  stated  almost  in  the  terms  of  the  Eleatic 
school.  Being  is  :  non-being  is  not.  Being  is  one  :  non-being 
is  many.  Therefore  multiplicity  is  not.  It  is  unreal.  It  is  an 
accident  pertaining  to  human  consciousness,  not  something  con- 
stitutive of  reality.  In  a  word,  it  is  Maya  '  illusion.'  Such  was 
the  final  explanation. 

The  word  '  indyd,'  from  ma  to  measure,  effect,  make,  occurs 
many  times  in  the  Rig-Veda  in  the  sense  of  pozver,  especially 
wonderful,  supernatural  or  creative  power.  In  the  plural  it  means 
'supernatural  arts  '  or  'devices,'  as  in  RV.,  VI,  47,  18,  VIII,  14, 
14,  etc.  Maya  does  not  occur  in  the  oldest  Upanishads  except 
in  Brh.  Up.,  II,  5,  19  (  =  RV.,  VI,  47,  18).    Thus  : 

He  found  his  form  in  every  form  incarnate, 
This  is  the  form  of  him  for  human  vision  ; 
Through  magic  wanders  multiform  wise  Indra, 
Yoked  are  his  horses  by  the  tens  and  hundreds. 

This  passage  seems  to  furnish  the  starting  point  for  the  later 
use  of  indyd.  Indra  becomes  multiform  through  his  stipernaUiral 
arts.  Multiplicity  is  made  the  effect  of  maya,  and  maya  may 
here  be  rendered  by  '  magic '  just  as  well  as  by  'power.'  In  the 
(J vet.  Up.,  occurs  the  first  passage  in  which  maya  is  used  in  a 
cosmic  sense  : 

From  whom  come  hymns,  works,  vows,  and  sacrifices, 
Future  and  past,  yea  all  the  Veda-teachings,  / 
He  as  Magician  (mayin)  all  this  world  created, 
In  which  the  soul  through  mdyd  is  entangled. 

Maya  know  prakriti  (  =  nature)  to  be. 
And  as  Eiichanter  the  Great  God  ; 
With  that  which  of  his  parts  consists. 
Pervaded  is  the  entire  world.      (IV,  9,  10.) 

In  this  sense  the  word  '  mdyd  '  is  often  used  in  the  sectarian 
Upanishads  and  in  the  Bhagavadgita. 


70  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

We  have,  then,  in  the  Upanishads  three  moments  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  relation  between  the  one  and  the  many  :  (i)  the 
thesis,  unity  is  (Chand.  Up.,  VI,  2,  i),  (2)  the  antithesis,  plural- 
ity is  not  {Kath.  Up.,  IV,  10,  11),  and  (3)  the  synthesis,  plurality 
is  the  illusive  play  of  unity,  the  magic  of  Brahman  the  great  ma- 
gician (^vet.  Up.,  IV,  9,  10).  As  the  source  of  all  sound  doctrine 
Brahman  appeared  in  the  early  Upanishads  as  the  Gi'eat  Teacher; 
while  as  the  source  of  all  (apparent)  multiplicity  he  appears  in  the 
late  Upanishads  as  the  Great  Magician. 

Concerning  the  antiquity  of  the  doctrine  of  maya,  Colebrooke^ 
says  :  "  I  take  it  to  be  no  tenet  of  the  original  Vedantin  philoso- 
phy ;"  while  on  the  contrary  Gough  ^  claims  "  that  maya  is  part 
and  parcel  of  the  primitive  Indian  cosmological  conception,  as 
exhibited  in  the  Upanishads  themselves."  Which  is  right  ?  It 
seems  to  me  that  each  is  both  right  and  wrong.  Colebrooke  is 
right  in  the  sense  that  the  doctrine  of  maya  is  not  found  explicitly 
stated  in  the  older  Upanishads  ;  while  Gough  is  right  in  the 
sense  that  the  doctrine  in  question  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of 
Brahman,  the  great  theme  of  all  the  Upanishads.^ 

1  Essays,  p.  242. 

2  Upanishads,  p.  xi. 

3  There  is  an  interesting  N.  T.  parallel.  The  net  result  of  the  New  Testament 
theologically  is  the  conception  of  God  the  Father,  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  But 
these  were  left  by  the  N.  T.  writers  standing  over  against  one  another,  philosoph- 
ically unrelated  and  unexplained.  The  Greek  theologians  took  up  the  problem  and 
answered  it  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  doctrine  is  and  is  not  a  doctrine  of 
the  New  Testament  in  the  same  sense  in  which  maya  both  is  and  is  not  a  doctrine  of 
the  Upanishads.  Neither  is  found  explicitly  in  the  documents  in  question,  but  on  the 
other  hand  each  seems  to  be  implied. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

The  Doctrine  of  Brahman  in  the  Vedanta-SOtras  as 
Expounded  by  Qankaracarya. 

The  period  of  the  classical  Upanishads  was  the  creative  period 
of  Indian  philosophy.  It  was  naturally  followed  by  an  age  of 
exposition  and  system-building.  The  earliest  systematic  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Upanishads  is  found  in  the  Vedanta- 
Sutras.  But  these  without  a  commentary  are  unintelligible. 
This  want  is  supplied  by  the  famous  Bhdsya  of  ^ankaracarya, 
the  earliest  extant  commentary  on  the  Vedanta-Sijtras.  Here 
then  we  must  take  up  the  thread  of  our  investigation.  We  shall 
cite  from  the  excellent  translation  of  Professor  Thibaut. 

Indian  philosophy  began  with  the  problem  of  the  universe  as 
a  whole.  Purusha  (RV.,  X,  90,  2),  Prajapati  (^at.  Br.,  V,  i,  i, 
4),  and  Brahman  (Chand.  Up.,  Ill,  14,  i),  representing  respec- 
tively the  Vedic,  the  Brahmanic  and  the  Upanishad  speculation, 
are  each  of  them  identified  with  the  totality  of  nature  {idam 
sarvain).  But  this  was  little  more  than  to  fix  the  problem.  It 
remained  to  reduce  the  chaos  of  existence  to  an  ordered  system 
through  the  insight  of  reason.  As  already  pointed  put,  the  Upa- 
nishads recognize  different  degrees  of  reality.  There  is,  however, 
a  tendency  to  employ  the  principle  of  dichotomy,  to  bring  things 
under  the  head  of  either  of  two  mutually  exclusive  categories. 
Not  to  mention  the  Vedic  sat  *  being '  and  asat  '  non-being  '  which 
only  gradually  came  to  be  used  in  sharp  antithesis  to  each  other, 
we  have  in  the  early  Upanishads  Brahman  as  the  totality  of 
things  divided  into  Brahman  with  a  form  and  Brahman  formless, 
Brahman  mortal  and  Brahman  immortal,  Brahman  phenomenal 
and  Brahman  noumenal  {Brh.  Up.,  II,  3,  i),  Brahman  defined 
and  Brahman  undefined.  Brahman  conditioned  and  Brahman  un- 
conditioned (Taitt.  Up.,  II,  6),  Brahman  as  time  and  Brahman  as 
the  timeless  (Mait.  Up.,  VI,  15).  In  like  manner  Spinoza  began 
with  the  conception  of  nature  in  its    totality  and  concreteness 


72  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

(Tractatns  Brevis,  I,  2),  but  soon  distinguished  between  NatiLva 
Naturans  (=  Deus,  Substantia,  Natura/^r  excellence)  "^nd  natiira 
natiirata,  the'  world  of  finite  modes.  We  may  also  cite  the 
Kantian  distinction  between  noumenon  and  phenomenon,  and 
that  of  Schopenhauer  between  will  and  idea.  We  have  already- 
indicated  how  in  the  Upanishads  the  development  of  the  relation 
between  the  one  and  the  many  passed  through  three  stages  :  (i) 
Unity  is,  (2)  Plurality  is  not,  and  (3)  Plurality  is  the  illusive  play 
of  unity.  In  the  place  of  the  early  distinction  between  Brahman 
noumenal  and  Brahman  phenomenal,  we  have  finally  the  distinc- 
tion between  Brahman  and  maya,  in  which  maya  takes  the  place 
>  of  the  phenomenal  Brahman  and  is  regarded  as  non-being  as 
opposed  to  Being  or  Brahman.  This  is  the  standpoint  of  Can- 
karacarya. 

A.    The   Theology  of  (^ankardcdrya. 

«  In  the  introduction  to  his  great  work  on  the  Vedanta-Siatras, 
^ankara  makes  a  sharp  distinction  between  subject  and  object, 
ego  and  non-ego.     The  one  is  the   home  of  intelligence  and  re- 

''  ality  ;  the  other,  of  the  non-intelligent  and  the  unreal.  Ordinary 
experience  {vyavalidra)  is  the  result  of  superimposing  the  non- 
ego  upon  the  Ego,  the  unreal  upon  the  Real.  Thus,  as  ^ankara 
says,  '  on  the  Self  are  superimposed  particular  conditions  such  as 
caste,  stage  of  life,  age,  outward  circumstances,  and  so  on.' 
/These  particular  conditions  are  called  upddJiis  or  '  limiting  ad- 
juncts.' On  them  are  based  all  the  practical  distinctions  of  life. 
They  are  the  ground  of  multiplicity.  By  them  the  unity  of  the 
Self  is  fictitiously  broken  up.  Remove  them,  and  lo  the  residue 
is  pure  thought  untainted  by  the  antithesis  of  subject  and  object, 
or  by  the  distinction  of 'this  '  and  '  that.'  Superimposition  {adh- 
ydsd)  is  said  to  be  '  a  natural  procedure '  on  the  part  of  man, 
since  it  is  involved  in  all  functioning  of  the  intellect.  It  is  the 
subjective  principle  of  multiplicity.  As  such  it  inheres  in  the 
human  mind  as  a  transcendental  form  of  cognition  just  as  time 
and  space,  according  to  Kant  and  Schopenhauer. 

But  superimposition  is  called  not  only  '  a  natural  procedure,' 
but  also  one  '  which  has  its  source  in  zvrong  knowledge  '  {jnithyd- 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  ^ANKARACARYA.  73 

jndna)  namely,  failure  to  discriminate  between  subject  and  ob- 
ject. We  have  here  a  kind  of  metaphysical  or  rather  trans- 
cendental '  depravity,'  which  is  at  once  '  racial  '  affecting  all  men 
and  '  total '  affecting  the  entire  thought  of  eveiy  man.  This 
'  total  depravity  '  of  the  intellect  is  the  Indian  analogue  of  the 
'  total  depravity '  of  the  zvill  as  held  by  a  certain  school  of  Chris- 
tian thinkers.  Nescience  or  non-knowledge  {avidya)  is  the  name 
given  to  this  transcendental  depravity  of  the  intellect,  since  it 
persists  in  superimposing  the  unreal  apddhis  or  '  limiting  ad- 
juncts '  upon  the  one  reality,  and  so  creating  the  appearance  of 
multiplicity.  Knowledge  {I'idya),  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  dis- 
crimination of  the  Self  from  the  not-self,  the  Real  from  the  un- 
real. The  world  of  ordinaiy  experience  {lokavyavahdrd)  is  re- 
garded as  the  sphere  of  Nescience.  According  to  the  Indian 
thinker,  to  know  individuals,  houses,  trees,  and  such  things  is  to 
know  nothing  as  one  ought  to  know.  Cankara  does  not  say 
that  for  one  who  knows  nothing  higher  such  knowledge  may  not 
have  the  value  of  reality.  Indeed,  he  tells  us  plainly  that  '  the 
entire  complex  of  phenomenal  existence  is  considered  as  true  as 
long  as  the  knowledge  of  Brahman  being  the  Self  of  all  has  not 
arisen  ;  just  as  the  phantoms  of  a  dream  are  considered  to  be 
true  until  the  sleeper  wakes '  (II,  i,  14).  And  from  this  point 
of  view  he  refutes  the  idealism  and  nihilism  of  the  Buddhists  in 
language  which  makes  him  almost  seem  to  be  a  realist  (II,  2, 
28-32).  Thus,  according  to  ^ankara,  there  are  two  kinds  of 
reality,  the  first  practical,  phenomenal,  relative  {tydvahdnkd),  and 
the  second  noumenal  and  absolute  '{pdramdrthika).  And  cor- 
responding to  these,  there  are  two  kinds  of  knowledge  :  '  wrong 
knowledge  '  {luitJiydjndiid)  the  correlative  of  phenomenal  reality, 
and  '  perfect  knowledge '  {samyagjndiid)  the  correlative  of  abso- 
lute reality.  To  identify  oneself  with  the  first  or  lower  reality 
is  to  become  'a  part  of  nature,'  subject  to  the  law  of  sainsdra, 
the  eternal  sequence  of  moral  causation.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  identify  oneself  with  the  second  or  higher  reality  is  to 
transcend  the  sphere  of  merit  and  demerit  and  to  realize  the 
unity  and  blessedness  of  Brahman  the  Highest. 

The  theory  of  the  superimposition  of  '  limiting  adjuncts  '  leads 


74  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

naturally  to  the  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  the  individual  self 
and  the  Highest  Self.  For  ^ankara,  as  for  Kant,  space  [dkdga)  is 
one.  But  it  may  be  broken  up  into  spaces  by  earthen  jars  and 
the  like.  As  Space  is  to  spaces,  so  is  the  Supreme  Self  to  in- 
dividual selfs.  As  ^ankara  puts  it :  '  Just  as  the  spaces  within 
jars,  if  considered  apart  from  their  limiting  conditions,  are 
merged  in  universal  space,  so  the  soul,  which  exists  in  all  bodies, 
if  considered  apart  from  the  limiting  adjuncts,  is  nothing  else  but 
the  highest  Self  (I,  3,  7).  Thus  'the  Lord  differs  from  the 
soul,  which  is  embodied,  acts  and  enjoys,  and  is  the  product  of 
Nescience,  in  the  same  way  as  the  real  juggler,  who  stands  on 
the  ground  differs  from  the  illusive  juggler,  who,  holding  in  his 
hand  a  shield  and  a  sword,  climbs  up  to  the  sky  by  means  of  a 
rope ;  or  as  the  free  unlimited  ether  differs  from  the  ether  of  a 
jar'  (I,  I,  17).  In  short,  the  difference  between  the  individual  self 
and  the  highest  Self,  while  valid  for  the  lower  point  of  view,  is 
not  valid  for  the  higher.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  highest 
reality  it  is  'fictitious.'  Before  leaving  this  point  we  may  glance 
at  the  analogous  New  Testament  doctrine.  God  is  declared  to 
be  spirit  (rrpsu/xa,  John  IV,  24).  But  Tioe~Jna  in  the  N.  T.  some- 
times indicates  the  human  spirit  and  sometimes  the  Divine  Spirit.^ 
Possessing  or  rather  being  '  spirit '  is  the  link  between  the  human 
and  the  Divine.  The  reference  of  Tivzufxa  to  the  Divine  is  made 
explicit  by  such  expressions  as  'the  Spirit  of  God,'  'the  Spirit 
of  Christ,'  'the  Holy  Spirit'  ;  just  as,  when  dtman  refers  to  the 
one  Spirit  or  Self,  it  is  often  enlarged  to  Parmndtman, '  the  Highest 
Self.'  We  even  have  in  the  Pauline  writings  a  kind  of  doctrine 
of  identity,  namely,  the  personal  confession  of  Paul  the  mystic  in 
Gal.  II,  20 :  'It  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me.' 
Perhaps  the  most  characteristic  as  well  as  speculatively  the 
highest  doctrine  of  ^ankaracarya  is  the  doctrine  of  the  '  double 
nature  of  Brahman,  according  as  it  is  the  object  either  of  knowl- 
edge or  of  Nescience'  (I,  i,  11).  We  have  already  referred  to 
passages  in  the  Upanishads  {Brh.,  II,  3,  i,  Taitt.,  II,  6),  which 
would  seem  to  furnish  the  starting  point  for  such  a  distinction. 
The  doctrine   in  question   is   the   outcome  of  a   consistent  and 

1  So  with  1-ilak  '  spirit '  in  the  O.  T. 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF   ^ANKARACARYA.  75 

thoroughgoing  appHcation  of  the  theory  of  hmiting  adjuncts.  As 
already  explained,  if  we  think  away  the  iipddliis,  there  remains 
only  pure  being  which  is  pure  thought,  one  and  absolute.  This 
is  at  once  the  standpoint  and  the  method  of  deliverance  {inoksha). 
For  '  as  soon  as,  in  consequence  of  the  declaration  of  non-differ- 
ence contained  in  such  passages  as  "that  art  thou,"  the  convic- 
tion of  non-difference  comes  to  consciousness,  the  transmigratory 
state  of  the  individual  soul  and  the  creative  quality  of  Brahman 
vanish  at  once,  the  whole  phenomenon  of  plurality,  which  springs 
from  wrong  knowledge,  being  sublated  by  perfect  knowledge  ' 
(II,  I,  22).  We  have  here  at  once  a  doctrine  of  scripture  and  a 
doctrine  of  faith.  Just  as  the  Christian  is  to  *  reckon  himself 
{ethically)  dead  unjo  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  '  on  the  basis  of  the 
scripture  to  this  effect  (Rom.  VI,  1 1),  even  so  the  Vedantist  is  to 
reckon  himself  metaphysically  separate  from  all  plurality  and 
identical  with  Brahman  the  '  one  only  without  a  second '  on  the 
basis  of  such  scripture  texts  as  Tat  tvam  asi  '  that  art  thou.'  So 
much  for  the  man  of  '  perfect  knowledge '  who  has  attained  to 
the  perfect  vision  {sainyagdargand)  or  intuition  [pratyaksa)  of  the 
Highest  Self  But  what  of  the  unenlightened  multitudes  who 
know  not  Brahman  and  yet  profess  to  know  and  worship  him  as 
God  ?  To  answer  this,  we  must  remember  that  the  law  of  the 
tipddJiis  governs  all  functioning  of  the  intellect,  ideation  as  well 
as  sense-perception.  To  think  at  all  is  to  think  in  terms  of  the 
'  limiting  adjuncts,'  or,  as  Kant  would  say,  under  the  forms  of 
space  and  time.  Ideas,  then,  as  well  as  percepts  obey  the  law  of 
the  upddhis,  and  the  highest  Idea,  i.  e.,  God,  just  as  much  as  any 
lower  idea.  But  as  already  pointed  out,  the  superimposition  of 
the  upadhis,  although  a  necessity  of  mind,  is  regarded  as  having 
its  source  in  wrong  knowledge.  This  transcendental  '  depravity' 
of  intellect  taints  all  thought  and  all  the  objects  of  thought,  even 
the  highest  object  God,  with  the  taint  of  unreality.  The  think- 
able is  unreal :  the  unthinkable  alone  is  real. 

Unthinkable  by  thought  is  that 

Through  which  they  say  that  thought  is  thought ; 

Brahman  know  that  alone  to  be, 

Not  that  which  people  here  adore.      (Kena,  I,  5.) 


K 


7^  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

By  whom  not  thought  by  him  'tis  thought ; 

By  whom  'tis  thought,  he  knows  it  not.      (Kena,  II,  3.) 

Brahman  is  accordingly  apprehended  under  two  forms,  first 
as  qualified,  defined,  clothed  upon  with  attributes,  through  the 
inevitable  tendency  of  the  mind  to  superimpose  '  limiting  con- 
ditions '  on  all  the  objects  of  its  thought.  As  such  it  constitutes 
the  anthropomorphic  deity  of  popular  worship,  and  so  as  an  '  ob- 
ject of  devotion '  is  localized  in  heaven,  in  the  heart  and  so  on. 
But,  secondly,  Brahman  may  be  apprehended  as  separate  from 
all  limiting  adjuncts  whatever,  as  pure,  unqualified,  unattached, 
absolute.  Of  that  ultimate  mystery  one  can  only  say  neti  neti 
'no,  no.'  Attributes  such  as  infinite,  eternal,  unchangeable,  om- 
nipotent, omniscient,  etc.,  are  inapplicable,  since  they  all  pre- 
suppose connection  with  a  spatial  or  temporal  order.  Even  the 
characterization  of  Brahman  as  unity,  reality,  thought  and  bliss, 
is  impossible,  if  this  point  of  view  be  held  rigorously,  since  these 
are  all  concepts  derived  from  experience.  In  a  word,  as  the  final 
product  of  abstraction  carried  to  the  uttermost  limits  we  have 
the  concept  of  an  absolute  entity  concerning  which  not  a  single 
predication  can  legitimately  be  made.  The  world  of  experience, 
which  is  usually  regarded  as  the  sphere  of  science,  is  here  made 
the  sphere  of  nescience,  while  that  transcendent  being  concerning 
which  we  can  say  absolutely  nothing,  is  called  *  an  object  of 
knowledge'!  What  then  is  the  relation  between  the  'higher' 
and  the  '  lower  '  Brahman  ?  Both  are  the  same  and  yet  not  the 
same.  The  higher  Brahman  =  the  lower  Brahman  minus  the 
limiting  adjuncts,  while  the  lower  Brahman  =  the  higher  Brah- 
man plus  the  limiting  adjuncts.  Ultimate  reality  conceived  an- 
thropomorphically  is  the  lower  Brahman.  Ultimate  reality 
deanthropomorphized  is  the  higher  Brahman.  The  one,  like  the 
Vorstelhiiig  of  Hegel,  is  a  representation  projected  by  the  religious 
imagination  ;  the  other,  like  the  Begriff  o{\\\q  same  thinker,  is  a 
concept  of  reason.  The  lower  knowledge  {apard  I'idyoL)  is  con- 
cerned with  the  lower  Brahman  as  the  supreme  concept  of  re- 
ligion ;  while  the  higher  knowledge  {^pard  vidjd)  is  concerned 
with  the  higher  Brahman  as  the  supreme  concept  of  philosophy. 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  (^ANKARACARYA.  77 

We  come  finally  to  the  cosmology  of  ^ankaracarya.  As  al- 
ready explained,  that  form  of  Brahman  which,  according  to  the 
Upanishads,  is  mortal,  phenomenal,  defined,  conditioned  and  sub- 
ject to  time  and  space,  namely,  Brahman  as  the  ordered  world 
of  experience  {iiatiira  nattcrata),  is  in  ^ankara's  system  virtually 
called  Maya.  What  is  the  relation  of  Maya  to  Brahman  ? 
^ankara  says  in  one  place  :  '  Although  all  qualities  are  denied  to 
Brahman,  we  nevertheless  may  consider  it  to  be  endowed  with 
powers,  if  we  assume  in  its  nature  an  element  of  plurality,  which 
is  the  mere  figment  of  Nescience'  (II,  i,  31);  and  in  another 
place :  '  By  that  element  of  plurality  which  is  the  fiction  of 
nescience,  which  is  characterized  by  name  and  form,  which  is 
evolved  as  well  as  non-evolved,  which  is  not  to  be  defined  either 
as  the  existing  or  the  non-existing.  Brahman  becomes  the  basis 
of  this  entire  apparent  world  with  its  changes  and  so  on,  while  in 
its  true  and  real  nature  it  at  the  same  time  remains  unchanged, 
lifted  above  the  phenomenal  universe'  (II,  i,  27);  and  once 
more  :  '  Belonging  to  the  self,  as  it  Avere,  of  the  omniscient 
Lord,  there  are  name  and  form,  the  figments  of  Nescience,  not 
to  be  defined  either  as  being  nor  as  different  from  it,  the  germs 
of  the  entire  expanse  of  the  phenomenal  world,  called  in  (Jruti  and 
Smriti  the  illusion  {jndjd),  power  [gakti),  or  nature  [prakriti) 
of  the  omniscient  Lord  '  (II,  i,  14).  These  passages  give  the 
cosmological  theory  of  ^ankara,  which  we  may  briefly  sum- 
marize as  follows  : 

1.  The  universe  consists  of  something  which  is  neither  the 
same  as  Brahman  nor  different.  Objectively  considered,  it  is 
prakriti  '  matter  '  and  gakti  '  force.'  But  matter  and  force,  while 
true  for  experience,  cannot  be  true  in  the  sphere  of  absolute  re- 
ality ( paraindrthatas).  Therefore,  subjectively  considered,  the 
universe  is  ^^-/V/;'^  'nescience'  2S\d.  indyd  'illusion.'  It  is  'the 
world  as  idea,'  which  has  no  existence  except  for  consciousness. 
As  consisting  of  the  aggregate  of  the  upddliis,  the  world  of  ex- 
perience belongs  to  the  nature  of  the  lower  Brahman,  i.  c.  Brah- 
man as  'fictitiously  connected  with  maya '  (II,  2,  2). 

2.  Between  the  world  of  the  upadhis  or  '  finite  modes  '  and  the 
lower  Brahman    there  intervene  '  name  and  form'  {iidmanipc), 


^ 


78  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

which  are  conceived  both  as  ideally  present  even  before  the  cre- 
ation (I,  I,  5)  in  the  knowledge  of  (the  lower)  Brahman  as  Creator, 
and  as  the  highest  categories  of  human  experience.  With  the  In- 
dian conception  of  '  name  and  form  '  we  may  compare  Spinoza's 
two  attributes  of  Thought  and  Extension,  which  are  regarded  as 
bridging  the  gulf  between  the  one  infinite  Substance  and  the 
multiplicity  of  finite  modes,  ^ankara  is  also  acquainted  with  the 
distinction  between  individual  {vyakti)  and  species  {dkrti  =eioo(^'). 
The  former  he  regards  as  coming  into  existence,  but  the  latter  as 
eternal  (I,  3,  28).  The  dkrtayas  of  (Jankara  are  analogous  to  the 
Ideas  of  Plato  and  possibly  to  the  Essences  of  Spinoza.  Hence  on 
the  basis  of  relation  to  the  world  of  experience  we  might  arrange  a 
series  in  a  descending  scale  after  the  manner  of  the  Gnostic  ema- 
nations. Thus  :  (^a)  the  higher  Brahman  separate  from  maya, 
{b^  the  lower  Brahman  connected  with  maya,  {c)  name  and  form, 
the  revelation  of  maya,  {cC)  eternal  species,  {c)  finite  individuals. 
3.  Maya  is  neither  being  nor  non-being,  but  rather  a  becom- 
ing. It  is  not  identical  with  the  pure  Brahman  as  the  Ding  an 
sich  ;  nor  is  it,  on  the  other  hand,  absolutely  unreal,  since  it  is 
real  to  consciousness.  We  have  here  to  do  with  the  Vedantic 
doctrine  of  development,  ^ankara  speaks  of  a  '  causal  potenti- 
ality'  {pijgakti  I,  4,  3)  as  the  antecedent  condition  of  the  present 
ordered  world.  '  Without  it  the  highest  Lord  could  not  be  con- 
ceived as  creator,  as  he  could  not  become  active  if  he  were  des- 
titute of  the  potentiality  of  action.'  Such  '  causal  potentiality ' 
has  '  the  highest  Lord  for  its  substratum  '  and  is  '  of  the  nature 
of  an  illusion  '  {indydmaji).  Here  then  we  have  the  doctrine  of 
a  world-process  grounded  in  Brahman  as  the  highest  Lord,  real 
for  sense,  but  unreal  for  reason,  and  so  in  its  deepest  nature  illu- 
sory. It  is  to  be  noted  that  Brahman  when  related  to  the  world 
is  ipso  facto  the  lower  Brahman,  as  opposed  to  the  higher  or  un- 
related Brahman  ;  thus,  as  the  first  term  in  the  world-process 
(noumenal  A),  the  lower  Brahman  quite  properly  bears  the  name 
of  Parajnegvara,  '  the  highest  Lord.'  The  lower  Brahman  is  just 
as  real  and  just  as  unreal  as  the  phenomenal  world,  since  it  is 
part  and  parcel  of  it.  It  is  the  ultimate  causal  abstraction  to 
which   thought   naturally    and    inevitably    tends.      Like    Kant's 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  gANKARACARYA.  79 

Ideal  of  pure  reason,  the  concept  of  the  highest  Lord  as  the 
great  first  cause  has  vahdity  only  as  a  principle  '  regulative '  of 
thought,  not  as  '  constitutive '  of  reality.  There  is,  however,  a 
striking  difference.  For  Kant  the  concept  '  God,'  while  only 
'  regulative '  from  the  standpoint  of  speculative  reason,  becomes 
virtually  '  constitutive  '  when  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  prac- 
tical reason.  But  for  ^ankara  there  is  no  way  of  making  the  con- 
cept of  a  world-cause  or  a  world-ground  any  more  real  than  the 
phenomenal  world  itself  But  the  world-process,  such  as  it  is, 
serves  as  a  sphere  for  the  self-revelation  of  the  highest  Lord. 
'  The  Self  .  .  .  reveals  itself  in  a  graduated  series  of  beings,  and 
so  appears  in  forms  of  various  dignity  and  power'  (I,  i,  ii). 
'  Wherever  there  is  excess  of  power,  and  so  on,  there  the  Lord  is 
to  be  worshipped.'  ^  '  The  highest  Lord  may,  when  he  pleases, 
assume  a  bodily  shape  formed  of  Maya,  in  order  to  gratify 
thereby  his  devout  worshippers  '  (I,  i,  20).  Such  is  (Jankara's 
explanation  and  justification  of  the  Indian  theory  of  different 
incarnations. 

4.  We  have  then  in  the  system  of  ^ankara  the  absolute 
Brahman  and  Maya  standing  over  against  each  other.  Brahman  as 
pure  thought  and  Maya  as  the  hypostasis  of  '  energy,'  '  nature,' 
'  matter.'  This  at  first  sight  looks  like  a  speculative  dualism,  a 
transcendental  rendering  of  the  terms  '  mind '  and  '  matter.' 
But  (^ankara  saves  his  monism  by  making  Maya  the  synonym  of 
avidyd  '  Nescience.'  A  word  with  reference  to  the  analogous 
doctrine  in  Christian  theology  of  '  the  creation  of  the  world  out 
of  nothing.'  Its  best  scriptural  support  is  perhaps  found  in  such 
texts  as  '  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made ;  and 
all  the  host  of  them  by  t/ie  breath  of  his  mouth.  ...  For  he 
spake,  and,  it  was  done;  he  commanded,  and  it  stood  fast.^ 
The  reference  is  clearly  to  Gen.  I,  3  :  '  And  God  said.  Let  there 
be  light :  and  there  was  light.'  The  thought  of  the  Psalm  is 
that  God's  power  is  so  great  that  He  can  create  as  easily  as  a 
human  being  can  speak  or  breathe.  In  like  manner  (Jankara 
speaks  of  the  highest  Lord  as  having  created  all  things  '  in  sport 
as  it  were,  easily  as  a  man  sends  forth  his  breath'  (I,  i,  3).      For 

>  Cf.  Gita,  X,  41.  2 Pa.  XXXIII,  6,  9. 


8o  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

'  although  the  creation  of  this  world  appears  to  us  a  weighty  and 
difficult  undertaking,  it  is  mere  play  to  the  Lord,  whose  power  is 
unlimited'  (II,  i,  33).  These  passages  both  from  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Sanskrit  suggest  primarily  the  lack  of  effort  with  which  God 
creates,  and  also  possibly  the  unreality  of  the  creation  as  com- 
pared with  the  immense  reality  of  the  Creator.  But  the  Hebrew 
realism  and  the  Indian  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  cause  and 
effect  would  both  seem  to  be  against  the  last  conjecture.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  for  the  mediaeval  theologians 
the  world  was  created  out  of  '  nothing  '  and  that  for  (^ankar- 
&carya  the  world  is  just  Maya  'illusion.'  In  the  first  system 
God  and  the  world  stand  over  against  each  other  ;  in  the  second, 
Brahman  and  Maya.  The  monism  of  both  systems  is  saved  by 
making  the  second  term  in  each  antithesis,  namely  the  world 
and  Maya,  derivative,  secondary,  nay  in  the  deepest  sense  juireal. 

B.  Qankardcdiya  and  Rdmdnnjdcdrya. 

^ankaracarya  lived  in  the  eighth  century  (788-820  A.  D.). 
In  the  twelfth  century,  however,  another  great  exegete  and 
theologian  flourished,  the  famous  Rduidmijdcdrya,  likewise  the 
author  of  a  commentary  on  the  Vedanta-Sutras  and  the  founder 
of  a  school  of  thought.  The  text  of  his  commentary  is  not  gen- 
erally accessible,  nor  does  the  work  exist  in  a  complete  transla- 
tion, so  far  as  I  know.  For  the  purpose  in  hand  it  is  necessary 
to  compare  only  the  chief  tenets  of  Ramanuja  with  the  corre- 
sponding views  of  ^ankara.  The  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
system  of  Ramanuja  are  presented  with  admirable  brevity  and 
clearness  in  Professor  Thibaut's  learned  introduction  to  his  trans- 
lation of  the  Vedanta-Sutras.^  On  the  basis  of  this  sketch  the 
following  points  of  difference  between  the  two  systems  may  be 
indicated  : 

I.  As  to  the  unity  of  Brahman,  Ramanuja  was  the  exponent 
of  a  qualified  non-duality  as  opposed  to  the  absolute  non- 
duality  of  ^ankara's  system.  Cankara  conceived  Brahman  to 
be  absolutely  homogeneous.  The  objection  that  '  Brahman  has 
in  itself  elements  of  manifoldness,'  that  '  as  the  tree   has   many 

1  SEE.,  Vol.  XXXIV. 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  gANKARACARYA.  8 1 

branches,  so  Brahman  possesses  many  powers  and  emergies 
dependent  on  these  powers,'  and  that  '  unity  and  manifold- 
ness  are  therefore  both  true '  (the  very  position  of  Ramanuja, 
II,  I,  14)  is  mentioned  only  to  be  rejected  on  the  ground  that 
the  phrase  '  having  its  origin  in  speech  '  (Chand.  Up.,  VI,  r, 
4-6)  declares  the  unreality  of  all  effects.  If  we,  on  the  basis 
of  common  sense,  assume  in  the  nature  of  Brahman  '  an  element 
of  plurality  '  (II,  I,  31),  it  is  only  because  of  that  innate  and  '  orig- 
inal '  depravity  of  intellect  by  which  we  are  compelled  to  view 
i^''  unity  under  the  disguise  of  multiplicity.  So  ^ankara  taught. 
On  the  other  hand,  Ramanuja,  as  already  hinted,  held  that  mul- 
tiplicity is  not  the  foe  of  unity,  but  rather  its  ally  and  comple- 
ment. The  many  somehow  share  in  the  reality  of  the  One. 
There  is  no  real  antithesis  between  the  One  and  the  many.  The 
unity  of  Ramiinuja  is  a  concrete  all-embracing  unity  rather  than 
an  abstract,  naked,  characterless  unity  such  as  ^ankara  taught. 
For  Ramanuja  the  world  is  not  unreal,  but  as  composed  of  acit 
and  cit,  '  matter '  and  *  souls,'  it  constitutes  the  body  of  the  Lord. 
The  universe  is  one  vast  organism  '  whose  body  nature  is  and 
God  the  soul.'  The  connection  between  Brahman  and  the  world  is 
real.  Hence  there  is  no  distinction  between  a  higher  or  unquali- 
fied and  a  lower  or  qualified  Brahman.  Hence,  too.  Brahman  as 
the  cause  of  a  real  world  has  the  attributes  of  omniscience,  omni- 
potence, omnipresence,  etc.,  which  are  involved  in  such  a  relation. 
Moreover,  there  is  a  greater  emphasis  on  the  moral  attributes  of 
God  than  is  displayed  in  the  system  of  Cankara.  "  The  Lord 
...  is  all-merciful  ;  his  nature  is  fundamentally  antagonistic 
to  all  evil."*  In  a  word,  the  Brahman  of  Ramanuja  is  a  personal 
God,  who  as  the  Antarydmin  or  '  inner  guide '  {^BrJi.  Up.,  Ill,  7) 
is  everywhere  immanent  both  in  nature  and  in  man,  permeating, 
animating  and  governing  all  things  by  his  spirit. 

2.  As  to  the  relation  between  Brahman  and  the  individual 
soul,  Ramanuja  proclaimed  a  qualified  identity  as  opposed  to 
the  absolute  identity  held  by  ^ankara.  For  ^ankara  the  indi- 
vidual soul  is  Brahman  limited  and  disguised  by  the  upadJiis* 
the  offspring  of  Maya.      For  Ramanuja,  on  the  other  hand,  the  in- 

1  Thibaut,  SBE.,  Vol.  XXXIV,  p.  xxviii. 


82  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

dividual  soul  has  a  relative  but  nevertheless  real  existence.  As 
a  finite  personality  it  is  just  as  real  in  its  own  sphere  as  the  infi- 
nite all-embracing  personality  of  God.  It  is  real  because  it  shares 
in  the  reality  of  Brahman.  Loss  of  separate  personality  through 
absorption  in,  or  recognition  of  identity  with,  the  highest  Self  is 
the  ideal  of  ^ankara.  The  preservation  of  personality  and  its  as- 
similation to  the  nature  and  character  of  Brahman  is  the  ideal  of 
Raman  uj  a. 

3.  As  regards  cosmology  both  Ramanuja  and  ^ankara  ad- 
mit the  doctrine  of  a  world-process  consisting  of  evolution  and 
dissolution.  But  for  ^ankara  this  process,  while  true  from  the 
standpoint  of  common-sense,  is  from  the  standpoint  of  Scripture 
and  reason  an  illusion.  For  Ramanuja,  however,  it  is  a  real  de- 
velopment, a  real  modification  of  the  substance  of  the  Lord. 
Thus  the  theory  of  Maya  is  accepted  by  ^ankara,  but  rejected  by 
Ramanuja, 

Thus  there  are  two  types  of  the  Vedanta,the  Vedanta  of(^ankara 
and  the  Vedanta  of  Ramanuja.  The  former  is  abstract,  idealistic 
and  far  removed  from  common  sense  ;  while  the  latter  is  concrete, 
realistic,  and  much  nearer  the  standpoint  of  common  sense.  The 
watchword  of  the  former  is  unity  without  multiplicity,  all  multi- 
plicity being  due  to  Maya.  The  watchword  of  the  latter  is  iinity 
in  multiplicity,  the  upadhis  being  regarded  as  real  forms  of  ex- 
istence. The  one  proclaims  a  doctrine  of  identity  ;  the  other,  a 
doctrine  of  emanation.  The  Brahman  of  ^ankara  is  properly 
transcendent — as  transcendent  as  the  God  of  Deism  ;  whereas 
the  Brahman  of  Ramanuja  is  immanent,  dwelling  in  all  things  as 
the  Antarydmin  or  '  inner  guide.'  Finally  the  system  of  ^ankara 
represents  Indian  orthodoxy  par  excelloice. 

C.   The  Veddnta-Sutras. 

These  consist  of  555  brief  aphorisms,  mere  '  threads  '  as  it 
were  on  which  to  string  '  the  flowers  of  the  Vedanta-passages  ' 
(I,  I,  2).  Their  purpose  is  to  systematize  the  doctrine  of  the 
Upanishads.  The  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  so  far  as  it  is  a  resume  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible,  furnishes  a  modern  analogue  of  the  Indian  Sutras,  although 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  gANKARACARYA.  83 

the  latter  do  not  proceed  by  way  of  question  and  answer.  We 
may  also  compare  the  aphorisms  of  the  Novum  Organum,  and  the 
propositions  in  Spinoza's  Ethics. 

The  Siatra  style  is  extremely  condensed,  but  not  otherwise  in- 
trinsically obscure.  All  writers  agree,  however,  in  affirming  that 
there  is  an  exception  in  the  case  of  the  two  Mhndj'nsd-Siityas,  the 
prior  Minidinsd  and  the  later  Mhndmsd,  which  systematize  re- 
spectively the  work-part  {karjuakdndd)  and  the  knowledge- 
part  (^jndhakdnda)  of  the  Veda.  Here,  as  Thibaut  remarks, 
"  Scarcely  one  single  Sutra  is  intelligible  without  a  commen- 
tary" (pp.  xiii-xiv).  As  an  illustration  of  the  combined  brevity 
and  obscurity  of  the  Vedanta-Sutras,  we  may  cite  Sutra,  I,  i,  3, 
(^dstrayonitvdt,  which  may  mean  either  '  Because  (Brahman)  is 
the  source  of  Scripture,'  or  '  Because  Scripture  is  the  source  (of 
the  knowledge  of  Brahman).'  Deussen  thinks  that  the  author 
(or  authors)  of  the  Vedanta-Sutras  was  influenced  by  the  desire  to 
make  the  secret  doctrine  of  the  Upanishads  as  stated  in  the  Sutras 
inaccessible  except  through  the  oral  comment  of  a  qualified 
teacher.* 

There  are  two  ways  of  approaching  the  Vedanta-Sutras  :  either 
by  way  of  the  Upanishads  whose  doctrine  the  Sijtras  are  supposed 
to  sum  up,  or  by  way  of  the  commentators,  the  earliest  and  most 
important  of  which  are  ^ankaracarya  and  Raman ujacarya,  both 
recognized  doctors  or  teachers  of  the  Vedanta  as  the  epithet 
Acdrya  indicates.  It  might  be  inferred  on  a  priori  grounds  that 
the  Sutras  set  forth  the  same  type  of  doctrine  as  is  found  in 
the  Upanishads,  since  their  sole  aim  is  to  reproduce  in  a  syste- 
matic form  the  teaching  thereof  But,  not  to  mention  the  pos- 
sibility of  there  being  different  types  of  doctrine  in  the  Upan- 
ishads themselves,  we  have  already  seen  that  the  two  systems 
of  ^ankara  and  Ramanuja  which  differ  on  the  most  fundamen- 
tal points,  have  been  built  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  same 
Sutras.  Both  interpretations  can  hardly  be  correct.  We  must 
look  for  the  true  meaning  of  the  Sutras  either  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  (^ankara  or  in  that  of  Ramanuja,  or  possibly  in  neither. 
Professor  Thibaut  is  the  first  to  attempt  to  penetrate  beyond  the 

^  Vedanta,  S.  28. 


84  A    STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

interpretations  of  the  scholiasts  to  the  meaning  of  the  Sijtras 
themselves.  This  he  does  by  instituting  a  careful  comparison  of 
the  interpretations  of  ^ankara  with  those  of  Ramanuja.  His 
conclusions  touching  the  type  of  Vedanta  set  forth  in  the  Siatras 
are  exceedingly  important.  "  I  must  give  it  as  my  opinion,"  he 
says,  "  that  they  do  not  set  forth  the  distinction  of  a  higher  and 
lower  knowledge  of  Brahman  ;  that  they  do  not  acknowledge 
the  distinction  of  Brahman  and  Igvara  in  ^ankara's  sense  ;  that 
they  do  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  unreality  of  the  world  ; 
and  that  they  do  not,  with  Cankara,  proclaim  the  absolute  iden- 
tity of  the  individual  and  the  highest  Self  "^  These  conclusions, 
startling  as  they  are,  can  hardly  be  gainsaid  by  any  one  who 
carefully  follows  Professor  Thibaut  through  his  line  of  research 
and  argumentation.  The  result  to  which  we  seem  to  be  brought, 
then,  is  this,  that  while  Ramanuja  is  the  more  faithful  exponent 
of  the  SiJtras,  (^ankara  is  a  more  trustworthy  guide  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Upanishads.  But  this  implies  that  the  Si!itras  do  not 
in  all  respects  adequately  represent  the  doctrine  of  the  Upan- 
ishads. How  are  we  to  account  for  this  ?  A  parallel  from  the 
history  of  Christian  theology  may  help  us  here.  Paulinism,  /.  e., 
religion  and  theology  as  conceived  by  Paul  and  set  forth  in  his 
Epistles,  was  the  system  under  which  the  Apostolic  Church  mostly 
made  its  conquests  throughout  the  Roman  Empire.  But  soon 
degeneration  set  in.  The  theology  of  the  middle  ages  was  equal 
to  the  theology  of  Paul  neither  in  religious  depth  nor  in  spirit- 
ual power.  Finally  the  Reformation  came  with  its  cry  of  '  Back 
to  the  sources,'  with  its  revival  of  the  theology  of  Paul.  The 
foremost  representative  of  the  Reformation  on  its  theological  and 
philosophical  side  was  Calvin,  just  as  the  foremost  representative, 
so  far  as  we  know,  of  the  Hindu  Revival,  at  least  on  its  philo- 
sophical side,  was  (^ankaracarya.  The  two  men  have  many 
things  in  common,  ^ankara  is  the  exponent  of  the  most  specu- 
lative type  of  Vedantism,  while  Calvin  represents  the  most  spec- 
ulative type  of  Christian  theology.  Both  alike  were  great  in  ex- 
egesis as  well  as  in  theology,  in  fact  they  were  great  in  theology 
partly  because    they  were    great    in    exegesis,      ^ankara  wrote 

1  SEE.,  Vol.  XXXIV,  p.  c. 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF   (^ANKARACARYA.  85 

commentaries  in  Sanskrit  on  most  or  all  of  the  classic  Upan- 
ishads,  while  Calvin  expounded  in  Latin  nearly  the  whole  of  the 
Christian  Scriptures.  Indian  exegesis  really  begins  with  ^an- 
kara,  just  as  modern  Biblical  exegesis  begins  with  Calvin.  But 
the  fame  of  each  rests  primarily  on  constructive  work  in  the  field 
of  theology.  The  *  momimentnin  acre pere^inius  '  of  ^ankaracarya 
is  his  BJidsya  on  the  Vedanta-Sutras,  while  Calvin's  most  famous 
work  is  the  ^  InstitiUio  CJiristiance  Religionis.'  It  is  worth  no- 
ticing that  neither  writer  even  in  his  most  original  and  construc- 
tive work  altogether  forsook  the  role  of  a  commentator.  The 
BJidsya  of  ^ankaracarya  is  a  commentary  on  the  Vedanta-Su- 
tras, just  as  the  '  Institutio  '  of  Calvin  began  as  an  exposition  of  the 
Ten  Commandments,  Lord's  prayer,  Apostles'  Creed,  and  Sac- 
raments. But  the  important  thing  is  this,  that  ^ankaracarya,  no 
less  than  Calvin,  conducted  his  exposition  in  the  light  of  a  first- 
hand knowledge  of  all  the  sources  involved.  Put  two  things  to- 
gether, first  the  inherent  obscurity  of  the  Vedanta-Sutras,  and 
second  ^ankara's  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Upanishads  as  the 
sources  of  the  system  expounded  in  the  Sutras,  and  it  is  easy  to 
see  how  ^ankara  might  interpret  the  system  through  the  sources 
rather  than  the  sources  through  the  system.  This  conclusion  is 
independent  of  the  question  whether  he  followed  an  exegetical 
and  philosophical  tradition  or  not.  Ramanuja,  however,  seems 
to  interpret  the  earlier  sources  through  the  later  system. 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
Sijtras  adequately  represent  the  doctrine  of  the  Upanishads.  It 
would  be  not  at  all  strange,  if  they  should  not.  The  work  of 
any  creative  period,  whether  in  religion  or  in  philosophy,  is  so 
unusual  that  the  succeeding  age  always  seems  to  be  marked  by 
degeneration.  As  instances  of  creative  epochs  take  the  period 
of  the  great  prophets  in  Israel,  of  the  classic  Upanishads  in 
India,  of  Socrates,  Plato,  and  Aristotle  in  Greece,  of  Christ  and 
His  Apostles  in  the  time  of  the  New  Testament,  of  Kant,  Fichte, 
Schelling,  and  Hegel  in  modern  times.  All  of  these  periods 
were  succeeded  by  reaction.  In  each  case  the  mountain  peak  of 
religious  or  philosophic  intuition  very  soon  sank  down  again 
nearly  or  quite  to  the  old  level.     There  are  two  main  reasons 


86  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

why  the  Vedanta-Sutras  represent  a  less  developed  point  of  view 
than  the  Upanishads.  First,  as  already  pointed  out  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  philosophy  of  the  Upanishads,  there  was  before 
very  long  a  compromise  between  the  religion  of  the  Atman  and 
the  religion  of  the  Devas.  As  Thibaut  says  :  "The  pure  doc- 
trine of  those  ancient  Brahmanical  treatises  underwent  at  a 
rather  early  period  amalgamation  with  beliefs  which  most  prob- 
ably had  sprung  up  in  altogether  different  communities."  ^  As 
a  literary  monument  of  such  amalgamation  Thibaut  cites  the 
Bhagavadgita.  But,  secondly,  every  system  of  thought  is  de- 
termined not  only  by  the  positive  content  which  it  wishes  to  ex- 
press, but  also  by  the  antagonisms  which  it  is  forced  to  meet. 
Now  it  is  evident  both  from  the  text  of  the  Vedanta-Sutras  and 
from  the  testimony  of  both  (Jankara  and  Ramanuja  that  the 
Sdu'ikhya  doctrine  enjoyed  especial  prestige  at  the  time  of  the 
composition  of  the  Sutras.  In  fact  the  great  antagonist  of  the 
Siitrakara  or  author  of  the  Siitras  was  the  Sdinkliyavadin.  The 
Sdi'nkliya,  while  in  form  a  dualism  affirming  the  eternal  self- 
existence  of  both  matter  (^prakriti)  and  souls  i^piiriislias),  was 
nevertheless,  so  far  as  the  origin  of  the  world  is  concerned,  a 
materialistic  monism.  Hence  the  doctrine  of  the  Sdinkhya  was 
the  natural  foe  of  the  spiritualistic  monism  of  the  Vedanta, 
Hence  the  duel  between  Brahman  and  Pradhdna.  The  Vedantin 
claimed  that  the  cause  of  the  world  is  the  intelligent  Brahman  ; 
the  SduikJiyavddin,  that  it  is  the  non-intelligent  pradhana.  Ac- 
cording to  the  one  the  world-ground  is  by  nature  intelligent : 
according  to  the  other  intelligence  is  a  late  product  of  evolution. 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  system  of  Schopenhauer  who  professed 
such  unbounded  admiration  for  the  Upanishads,  is  more  nearly 
akin  to  the  materialistic  side  of  the  Sdinkhya  than  to  the  Ve- 
danta of  either  ^ankara  or  Ramanuja.  We  have  in  the  conflict 
between  Sdinkhya  and  Veddnta  the  Indian  phase  of  the*  eternal 
struggle  between  materialism  and  spiritualism.  The  Sijtrakara 
felt  that  the  refutation  of  the  Sdinkhya  doctrine  of  a  non-in- 
telligent pradhana  was  virtually  the  '  refutation  of  all  heresies.' 
At  the  time  he  wrote  it  was  probably  by  no  means  certain  what 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.   cxxvi. 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  gANKARACARYA.  8/ 

the  issue  would  be.  But — and  this  is  the  important  point — the 
very  fierceness  of  the  antagonism  which  the  Siitrakara  was  com- 
pelled to  meet  could  not  have  been  without  influence  on  his 
mode  of  statement.  The  hypothesis  of  a  non-intelligent  principle 
i^pradJidnd)  as  the  cause  of  the  world  required  the  counter  hy- 
pothesis of  an  intelligent  principle  (Brahman),  likewise  conceived 
as  the  real  cause  of  a  real  world.  This  is  the  position  of  the 
Siatrakara  according  to  all  probability  as  well  as  the  position  of 
Raman  uja. 

A  comparatively  realistic  interpretation  of  Brahman  on  the  part 
of  the  Sutrakara  was  also  demanded  by  the  antithesis  of  Bud- 
dhism. Buddha  was  in  a  sense  an  Indian  Hume.  As  the  phi- 
losophy of  Hume  is  simply  the  philosophy  of  Berkeley  with  God 
left  out,  so  "  Buddhism  is  the  philosophy  of  the  Upanishads  with 
Brahman  left  out."  '  As  a  result  the  system  of  Buddha  was  al- 
most as  pure  a  nihilism  as  the  system  of  Hume,  This,  I  say,  is 
an  additional  reason  why  the  SiJtrakara  should  have  conceived 
Brahman  as  the  real  cause  of  a  real  world.  Buddhism  was  alive 
in  India  in  the  days  of  the  Sutrakara,  but  it  was  virtually  dead 
when  ^ankara  wrote.  Hence  ^ankara  could  revive  the  older 
idealism  of  the  Upanishads,  since  the  later  idealism  of  Buddha 
no  longer  stood  in  the  way. 

The  date  of  the  Vedanta-Sutras  is  uncertain.  All  we  are  ab- 
solutely sure  of  is  that  they  fall  between  the  time  of  the  oldest 
Upanishads  (perhaps  400  B.  C.)  and  the  time  of  ^ankaracarya 
(800  A.  D.).  But  the  Sutrakara  refers  to  earlier  teachers,  c.  g., 
Agniaratliya,  Aiiduloini,  Jaimini,  Bddari  et  al.,  in  such  a  way  as 
to  make  it  pretty  clear  that  the  Sutras  occupy,  as  Thibaut  says, 
"  a  strictly  central  position,  summarizing,  on  the  one  hand,  a  se- 
ries of  early  literary  essays  extending  over  many  generations,  and 
forming,  on  the  other  hand,  the  head  spring  of  an  ever  broaden- 
ing activity  of  commentators  as  well  as  virtually  independent 
writers."  "  The  Vedanta-Siitras,  then,  will  hardly  be  earlier  than 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  and  possibly  later  even  than 
that. 

1  Gough,  Upanishads,  p.  1 87. 

2  Introduction  to  SBE.,  vol.  XXXIV,  p.'xii. 


88  A   STUDY  OF  INDIAN  PHILOSOPHY. 

If  time  had  permitted,  a  chapter  might  have  been  added  on 
the  work  of  the  later  theologians,  the  authors  of  dogmatic  treatises 
such  as  the  Veddnta-Sdra  the  Veddnta-Paribhdsd  and  the  Panca- 
dagi.  These  carry  on  the  work  of  ^ankaracarya  and  are  related 
to  him  much  as  the  later  Protestant  scholastics  Turretinus, 
Amesius  and  Zanchius  are  related  to  Calvin.  In  a  word,  they 
render  the  abstractions  of  ^ankara  in  still  more  abstract  terms. 
An  able  criticism  of  the  Vedanta  of  the  later  theologians  is  to  be 
found  in  Pandit  Nehemiah  Goreh's  Rational  Refutation  of  the 
Hindu  Philosophical  Systems  as  translated  by  Dr.  Fitz-Edward 
Hall. 

The  systems  of  Cankaracarya  and  Ramanujacarya  are  related 
to  each  other,  somewhat  as  Galvanism  is  related  to  Arminianism. 
Galvanism  is  religious  rationalism.  Arminianism  is  religious 
empiricism.  The  one  construes  theology  from  the  Godward 
side  ;  the  other,  from  the  manward  side.  The  one  is  the  more 
logical ;  the  other,  the  more  human,  A  similar  difference  in 
point  of  view  separates  the  systems  of  ^ankara  and  Ramanuja 
from  each  other.  There  is,  however,  an  important  qualification 
to  be  made.  Ramanuja  construes  the  theology  of  the  Upanishads, 
as  summarized  in  the  Siatras,  from  only  one  point  of  view,  which 
may  be  called  (although  not  quite  accurately)  the  point  of  view 
of  experience,  ^ankara,  on  the  other  hand,  adopts  a  double 
point  of  view,  the  standpoint  of  Ramanuja  as  well  as  his  own 
proper  standpoint.  Dr.  Shedd,  my  honored  teacher  in  theology, 
is  reported  to  have  once  said  in  the  course  of  conversation:  "  The 
Bible  is  a  Galvinistic  book,"  and  then  apparently  as  an  after- 
thought, "but  it  has  a  good  many  Arminian  texts  in  it."  This  is 
exactly  the  position  of  ^ankara  with  reference  to  the  Upanishads. 
For  him  the  doctrine  of  the  Upanishads  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
higher  Brahman,  and  yet  he  saw  clearly  that  many  texts  refer  to 
the  lower  Brahman.  So  by  his  doctrine  of  a  higher  and  a  lower 
Brahman,  the  Brahman  of  philosophic  intuition  and  the  Brahman 
of  religious  belief  and  experience,  he  sought  to  do  justice  to  both 
classes  of  texts.  With  ^ankara's  distinction  between  the  higher 
and  the  lower  Brahman  we  may  compare  Spinoza's  distinction 
between  the  god  of  philosophy  as  expounded   in  the  Etliica,  the 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  CANKARACAR\A.  89 

object  of  a  passionless  '  amor  mtellectualis'  and  the  god  of  the- 
ology or  revelation  as  described  in  the  Tractates  TJieologico-Poli- 
ticus.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  distinction  between  a 
higher  and  a  lower  Brahman  in  ^ankara's  sense  is  formally  recog- 
nized in  the  Upanishads.  But  that  it  is  implied  in  some  of  their 
noblest  utterances  seems  to  me  fairly  clear.  At  any  rate,  as 
Thibaut  says,  "the  adoption  of  that  distinction  furnishes  the  in- 
terpreter with  an  instrument  of  extraordinary  power  for  reducing 
to  an  orderly  whole  the  heterogeneous  material  presented  by  the 
old  theosophic  treatises.  ...  It  is  not  only  more  pliable,  more 
capable  of  amalgamating  heterogeneous  material  than  other  sys- 
tems, but  its  fundamental  doctrines  are  manifestly  in  greater  har- 
mony with  the  essential  teaching  of  the  Upanishads  than  those 
of  the  other  Vedantic  systems."^  To  venture  on  another  com- 
parison, the  monistic  Vedanta  of  ^ankara  bears  about  the  same 
relation  to  the  qualified  monistic  Vedanta  of  Ramanuja  that  supra- 
lapsarian  Calvinism  bears  to  sublapsarian  Calvinism. 

In  the  Rig-Veda  Brahman  is  simply  'hymn'  or  'prayer.'  In 
the  system  of  ^ankara  it  is  the  absolute,  the  unthinkable.  Between 
these  two  limits  we  have  the  following  scheme  of  development. 
Brahman,  the  word,  is,  on  the  one  hand,  objectified,  and  so  be- 
comes as  it  were  incarnate  in  the  world  of  nature.  It  is,  on  the 
other  hand,  ' subjectified'  so  to  speak,  and  conceived  as  the  in- 
dwelling reason  or  self  of  things.  The  last  step  in  the  process  of 
abstraction  is  to  separate  Brahman  from  everything  knowable  or 
thinkable. 

Our  task  is  done.  The  primary  aim  has  been,  not  to  contro- 
vert, but  to  understand.  An  objective  attitude  has  been  maintained 
throughout.  Criticism  should  wait  upon  historical  exposition,  and 
not  complicate  its  processes  by  premature  objections.  The  de- 
velopment of  the  doctrine  of  Brahman  is  interesting  not  only 
from  the  point  of  view  of  Indian  history,  philosophy,  and  theology, 
but  also  for  the  light  which  it  throws  on  the  psychology  of  the 
Indian  mind. 

■  Op,  cit.,  pp.  cxxiii,  cxxiv. 


■j^ 


.t> 


DATE  DUE                          1 

N.!!Pr«f«*«i«B« 

r 

.'"""* 

^pm^^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S. A 

BL1215.B8G87 

Brahman:  a  study  in  the  history  of 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00009  6604 


